Featured Articles

Is Enrique Krauze an honest historian?

Four years ago I wrote an article for The Occidental Observer about the Jewish Mexican Enrique Krauze and his hatred for Donald Trump and White Protestant America. Krauze has lived in Mexico City since his childhood and is one of the most respected intellectuals in the Spanish-speaking world. In 2003 the Spanish government decorated him with the Gran Cruz de la Orden de Alfonso X el Sabio, and last year he was awarded the Premio de Historia Órdenes Españolas.

This September Krauze published Spinoza en el Parque México (Spinoza in Mexico Park), his intellectual autobiography that is currently being praised by an important sector of the country’s educated bourgeoisie. The cover of Krauze’s book features Samuel Hirszenberg’s 1907 painting Spinoza Excommunicated. It is curious to note that, in one of his recent television interviews on his book tour, Krauze expressed himself very angrily, not only about Vladimir Putin, but also about Viktor Orbán, because the White man’s nationalism frightens him.

The book of more than 700 pages traces the ideological odyssey of Krauze, born in 1947, from his childhood talks with his grandfather Saul, an avid reader of Spinoza, to the 1980s. One chapter from the book is entitled “Athens or Jerusalem.” In other chapters, in addition to Spinoza, Krauze confesses how other Jews influenced his intellectual odyssey: from Heinrich Heine, Franz Kafka, Ernst Toller, Walter Benjamin, György Lukács, Gershom Scholem, Irving Howe, Isaiah Berlin, Joseph Brodsky to Daniel Bell. Although he also mentions several Jews of the Frankfurt school, he claims that it was gentiles such as the Mexicans Daniel Cosío Villegas and Octavio Paz who exerted the greatest influence on Krauze’s ideological journey.

Spinoza in Mexico Park was written in Spanish. I would like to translate for the English-speaking reader some passages of the book and will use the September 2022 Mexican edition printed by Editorial Planeta. On pages 39–41, Krauze writes: “We were raised. In my case, that upbringing was steeped in respect for Jewish traditions, Jewish customs and the Jewish past, the Yiddish language and its literature, but not so much for religion. … In my case, religious observance was limited to the synagogue with my maternal family on the occasion of the major holidays at the end of the year (Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur). There were several synagogues nearby. … I would sit with my grandfather José Kleinbort and be impressed by the melody of the Kol Nidré.”

A few pages later Krauze states that part of his family was annihilated by the Nazis, among them a maternal great-grandmother and his paternal great-grandfather, and together with them several great-uncles. Spinoza in Mexico Park is written in the form of short questions by his friend José María Lassalle, and long answers by Krauze about the readings that marked him. To the question “Forgive the brutal question, what did the word Hitler awaken in you”, Krauze replies: “As a child, infinite fear. Later, the will to fight absolute power” (page 57). Four pages later, however, he confesses to his imaginary interlocutor that the foul epithets used by Jews in private conversations against Mexican gentiles greatly bothered him.

It was not at all common in Mexico for Jewish émigrés to marry non-Jews. Krauze married Isabel Turrent, a Catholic woman, albeit only civilly. Krauze mentions that his grandmother became a socialist because of the Russian pogroms, and concedes that in the case of the Jewish revolutionaries, they sought “the advent of a world in which there would be no differences of race or religion.” That is why his grandmother became not only revolutionary “but maximalisti, that is, they participated from 1905 in the most radical and violent wing of the Bolsheviks and with religious zeal and conviction that by killing or blowing up police stations they were saving humanity. The passion of these young men had a typically Jewish messianic touch” (pages 75–76). Krauze also mentions that Lenin’s triumph changed, for the better, the condition of Jews in the Soviet Union. But his grandfather Saul seems to have been unaware of the Moscow trials, “or, if he knew of them, he had minimised their importance.” And Jewish involvement in the mass murder of the period is unmentioned. Saul, who died on Yom Kippur in 1976, was only disappointed when in 1948 Stalin had several Jewish Communists killed whose Yiddish literature he had admired.

In the short section of the book devoted to the Austrian-Jewish writer Stefan Zweig, Krauze says that Zweig and others who fled the Nazi regime “were Jews who were determined to forget who they were, but society denied them that impossible transmutation.” I have read several books by Zweig and I particularly like his biographies of tormented souls he wrote about—Hölderlin, Kleist and Nietzsche. I also read The World of Yesterday. But Krauze forgets that Zweig, like many Jews at the time, supported the Bolshevik Revolution. No wonder the Austrian authorities under the Third Reich warned him, not very subtly, that Zweig had better leave the country (which he did).

I rarely admire writers or intellectuals who have written in Latin America. The exceptions are the sixteenth-century chronicler Bernal Díaz del Castillo and José Vasconcelos, who died in 1959. The section on Vasconcelos is entitled “The Fallen Hero” (Krauze is not only a historian but a biographer of the most illustrious Mexicans). While Krauze became obsessed with the figure of Vasconcelos, whom he initially admired, he eventually learned that this highly intelligent Mexican was well aware of Jewish power: something no longer seen in any Spanish-speaking intellectual aspiring to fame. Vasconcelos edited the magazine Timón for a time, which was subsidized by the German embassy under the Third Reich regime, and the Mexican government promptly closed it down.[1] Krauze tells us on page 215: “I don’t know if I will understand his descent into Nazism,” so it’s not surprising that Krauze does not mention, the Mexican journalist and revisionist historian Salvador Borrego (1915–2018), author of Derrota Mundial (1953), of 630 pages and 51 editions.

Salvador Borrego (center) at the First International Identity Conference in 2015

Borrego with the umbrella in his hand, who died aged 102, was such a remarkable journalist that on his centenary several personalities that readers of The Occidental Observer will recognise came to Mexico, among them David Duke, E. Michael Jones, Mark Weber, and Ernst Zündel (see photograph above). It is inconceivable that if even these and other international figures recognised Borrego’s work on behalf of Hitler’s Germany, Krauze ignored it. Derrota Mundial was Borrego’s major work, focusing on the origins, development and consequences of the Second World War, and prefaced from the second edition by José Vasconcelos himself. In his foreword, Vasconcelos wrote: “It is one of the most important books ever published in the American continent.”

On page 246, however, Krauze writes of the times when he was disappointed about the communist beliefs of his ancestors. He mentions Solzhenitsyn and the “appalling facts revealed” by the testimonies of The Gulag Archipelago, which Krauze first learned of when he read the March, 1974 issue of Plural, the magazine of the man who would become his friend and mentor, Octavio Paz (with whom he would go on to found another magazine of high culture in Mexico: Vuelta). By mid-1975 Krauze had left his generation, generally enamoured of the Soviet Union and Cuba, to “cross the street to the opposite pavement to join the magazine of our liberal ‘enemies.’”

It was not only Spanish-speaking Jews who were prone to reject Hitler. Krauze devotes a section of his book to the famed Argentine writer Jorge Luis Borges, “a lucid and early critic of Nazism” (p. 349) and lover of Israel. This chapter surprised me because quite a few Argentines, like the Mexican Vasconcelos were Germanophiles during the brief period of the Third Reich. It was not only this side of Borges that I learned from Krauze’s book. I was also surprised to learn that the Mexican intellectual Gabriel Zaid, of Palestinian origin and Catholic faith, as well as being a close collaborator of Paz  blamed Christian ethics for the revolutionary passion of the Salvadoran guerrillas (which would later infect other Central American countries). “I am certain that it was Zaid who first made explicit the connection between Catholic culture and the Latin American Marxist revolutionary spirit” (page 395). But this topic is beyond the scope of this review.

What matters is to see how Krauze subscribes to the official narrative about European anti-Semitism that culminated in the Holocaust: the hackneyed lachrymose interpretation that sees in Jewry only innocent lambs immolated by depraved Aryans. This is very clear in one of the final chapters of the book, “Memory of the Holocaust”, where Krauze casts the Holocaust survivor Hannah Arendt as his Beatrice who guides him through a genocide that seems to him to be unfathomable.

The first thing that strikes one about the renowned historian Krauze is that he does not seem to have the slightest interest in the historical Hitler, but quite the opposite with the Hitler of dogmatic mythology sold to us by Allied propaganda. On page 605 he writes: “Hitler knew The Protocols of the Elders of Zion by heart and applied them to the letter. The myth of the Jewish conspiracy…,” and then quoting his beloved Arendt.

I wonder if Krauze is familiar with the scholarly work of another Jew. I refer to Albert Lindemann’s Esau’s Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews (Cambridge University Press, 1997). If there is one thing that emerges from Esau’s Tears, it is that the Jewish problem is not a gentile hallucination. Lindemann shows how Jewish subversion, throughout the nineteenth century (i.e., before the publication of the Protocols), exasperated Austrians and Germans to the point of producing rational anti-Jewish reactions. Given that Esau’s Tears received good reviews, even from Jews, it is inexcusable that Krauze would have written such things as the one quoted above. Then Krauze quotes Hans Frank, Himmler, and Hitler himself without taking into consideration the historical context, so well explained in Esau’s Tears. I mention Lindemann’s book instead of TOO authors because, Lindemann being a mainstream academic historian, the very erudite Jewish Krauze has no excuse for ignoring him. And he also ignores Solzhenitsyn’s 200 Years Together, even though Krauze mentions the great Russian writer throughout Spinoza in Mexico Park.

Instead of the historian investigating the root causes for the so-called Holocaust through, say, Lindemann and Solzhenitsyn, Krauze writes: “It is impossible to represent the Holocaust. The Holocaust is ungraspable, inexpressible, incomprehensible. Me ken nisht (‘It can’t be done’), Israeli writer Aharon Appelfeld told Irving Howe in Yiddish when he asked him if it was possible to make literature out of the Holocaust. He concluded that you could write about what happened before, during and after the Holocaust, but not in the Holocaust” (page 618). On the next page Krauze shows us a picture of one of his aunts who survived Nazi persecution and died as a very long-lived elderly woman; and how, when he met her and her husband, they showed him their arms, tattooed in concentration camps. Toward the end of his book, Krauze recounts a 1989 pilgrimage with his father to Wysków (Poland)—the town where his family had lived before emigrating to Mexico.

It seems elementary to me that I should answer the question with which I titled this review in the negative. Spinoza in Mexico Park boasts a veritable galaxy of personalities from the intellectual world who shaped Krauze’s worldview. But only a dishonest historian can omit fundamental readings that could potentially help him to understand “the ungraspable, inexpressible and incomprehensible.”

César Tort (1958-) lives in Mexico City. He has devoted most of his intellectual life to researching the psychological toll of domestic abuse on children and teenagers. In recent times he has devoted himself to writing about the darkest hour of the West, from the point of view of the interests of the White man.


[1] Vasconcelos is the only Latin American intellectual of renown who dared to speak out frankly about Mexico’s racial history. Eleven years ago Counter-Currents published a short text that I translated: “A Mexican Lesson for Americans: An Excerpt from José Vasconcelos, A Brief History of Mexico”.

 

Punching Back Weakly: William F. Buckley’s “In Search of Anti-Semitism”

In Search of Anti-Semitism
William F. Buckley
Continuum, 1992

Introduction

A conservative who doesn’t care to fight against the Left is useless. He might as well be a leftist himself, because, over time he becomes more a symbol of capitulation than a leading light of the Right. As a twentieth-century conservative icon, pundit, and National Review publisher, William F. Buckley certainly wasn’t this bad when it came to the Jewish Question—but it was close.

In 1992, shortly after his retirement as National Review’s editor, Buckley published In Search of Anti-Semitism. This is a collection of essays, letters, speeches, and column excerpts which first appeared in National Review and dealt with four contemporaneous incidents which may or may not have been anti-Semitic in nature. These include Joseph Sobran’s criticisms of Israel and the disproportionate Jewish/Neocon control of American foreign policy; Patrick Buchanan’s similar complaints—especially as they relate to the neocons; the mysterious interpolation of a sentence from Mein Kampf into the credo of an issue of The Dartmouth Review (on the day before Yom Kippur, no less!); and Gore Vidal’s snide attacks on Israel and on neocons Norman Podhoretz and his wife Midge Decter from the pages of The Nation.

As its title suggests, In Search of Anti-Semitism chronicles Buckley’s quest to determine which of these are anti-Semitic and which are not. Buckley flexes his vocabulary and vast mental repository of American politics as he mulls over these events, all the while hampering himself with the following restriction: Because of the Jewish Holocaust, Jews as a group possess a unique and inherent innocence as well as retain a unique and inviolable right to an ethnocentric homeland. White people seem to lack these attributes in Buckley’s eyes, given how he insists that they “understand the nature of sensibilities in an age that coexisted with Auschwitz”1 while not insisting that Jews embrace similar sensibilities in an age that coexisted with the Holodomor and Gulag Archipelago.2 He describes the taboos regarding The Jews and Israel as “welcome,” and explains that this sensitivity exists “for the best of reasons.” Buckley also dismisses the proto-dissident journal Instauration as a “wild racist-nativist publication” and its editor Wilmot Robertson as “deranged.” Buckley condemns the 1950s pro-American publication, The American Mercury, for its “advanced nativism” and its editor Russell Maguire for being anti-Semitic.3 So, clearly, he ascribes to his fellow Whites neither the ethnocentrism nor the homeland rights that he so freely ascribes to Jews.

Buckley then sallies forth as a dignified umpire upon this uneven playing field. Given his pro-Jewish, anti-White parameters, he doesn’t do a half bad job. In fact, In Search of Anti-Semitism offers an (dare I say it) enjoyable glimpse into the man’s prodigious mind. His erudition, his facile control of language, his gift for analogy, his adroit application of paradigmatic argument, as well as the artfully cruel digs he takes at his opponents (especially Gore Vidal) all remind us of why he was a conservative icon for so long. People know right away that they are dealing with a first-rate intellect. A bit pompous and stuffy perhaps, but his sparkling prose makes it easy to overlook all that.

Problems arise like the eyes of a submerged alligator, however, when it becomes clear that anti-Semitism and the Jewish Question are just too thorny to fit neatly anywhere in Buckley’s wheelhouse. He cedes too much moral ground to the Jews (as well as a distinct ethnocentric edge), such that evaluating anti-Semitism objectively becomes almost impossible unless one side of the argument is cartoonishly wrong. For example, if a Jewish leftist shrieks anti-Semitism with little cause or in bad faith, as James Freedman, the Jewish president of Dartmouth college, did against The Dartmouth Review, then Buckley is reliable. And when dealing with someone the neocons also dislike, such as Vidal, Buckley can be fearless (and fun to read). However, when things are less clear cut—as in the cases of Sobran and Buchanan—then his fighting spirit begins to crumble, knowing that he will have to face the poison pens of his neocon colleagues (his “natural allies”) who know how to use the anti-Semitism charge like a weapon when gentiles like Buckley get out of line.

All Buckley can do is punch back weakly, which in the end convinces no one.

­Joe Sobran

By the mid-1980s, Joe Sobran, who was a senior editor of National Review, had written a series of articles in his syndicated column that hit the Jewish Question just right. As a result, he was smeared as an anti-Semite. Buckley summarizes:

In the columns, Mr. Sobran, among other things, has declared that Israel is not an ally to be trusted; surmised that the New York Times  endorsed the military strike against Libya only because it served its Zionist editorial line; and ruminated that the visit of the Pope to a synagogue had the effect of muting historical persecutions of Christians by Jews. In that last column, Mr. Sobran, exasperated, wrote, “But it has become customary recently to ascribe all Jewish-Christian friction to Christians. If a Jew complains about Christians, Christians must be persecuting him. If a Christian complains about Jews, he is doing the persecuting—in the very act of complaining. It simply isn’t fair.”

But faced with Sobran’s tendentious criticisms of Israel and Jews in general—criticisms that eschewed superficialities and hinted at something nefarious within the Jewish psyche—Buckley embarked upon a long march along the squishy middle ground. After invoking his split with The Mercury thirty years prior, he disassociated himself and National Review from Sobran’s offending articles—but not with Sobran personally. He then declared that his dear friend and colleague was not an anti-Semite, yet granted that claims that he was an anti-Semite might not be unreasonable.

Saying nothing would have been preferable to such cowardly equivocations.

Smelling weakness, the censorious Norman Podhoretz responded by scolding Buckley for giving Sobran space in National Review to respond to this bruhaha. He would have been happy with never seeing Sobran in National Review again. He also subtly threatened to lend more credence to Marty Peretz of The New Republic, who hated Sobran as an “unabashed bigot” and Buckley nearly as much for being so chummy with him.

After a snippy back and forth between the two pundits (in which Buckley, to be fair, holds his own), Buckley dives into the Sobran Question and unearths all the reasons Joe Sobran might be considered an anti-Semite. Buckley does deserve credit for at least airing out Sobran’s ideas—something the philo-Semitic neocons would be loath to do. To the Dissident Right today, the following four quotes from In Search of Anti-Semitism is vintage stuff—Sobran’s reputation only grows, while Buckley’s only grows stale in comparison.

  1. Buckley says that the people Sobran criticizes “[feel] victimized even when they have considerable power and aren’t using it very creditably.”
  2. Philo-Semitism can overgeneralize as preposterously as anti-Semitism. The fact that one has replaced the other only means that the Jews’ corporate fortunes have improved, not that people really appreciate them as they deserve to be appreciated. Real appreciation includes a certain amount of criticism, but even that has to rest on the assumption they have the same rights as other people.
  3. The ancient pagan charge against the Jews was that they were “misanthropes.” At any rate, however the Jews now may differ from the Jews then, they’ve always been aloof debunkers of what they took to be the idolatries of people around them, including Christianity. This naturally irritates the natives—or maybe I should say the nativists. At times it irritates me.
  4. “Anti-Semitism” only seems to show up nowadays in the context of discussion of Israel. Jews aren’t beaten in the streets, snubbed, denied entry to Harvard, etc. By every other index, anti-Semitism is defunct. Yet the Zionist Apparat wants to convince us it’s raging, “just beneath the surface.” It talks about “polite” and “sophisticated” and “thinly veiled” anti-Semitism. For some reason the stuff never gets overt.

Of course, Buckley does his level best to debunk Sobran, and nitpicks here and there. Most often, he is less than convincing (for example, pointing to how Sobran “never spent a lot of time blasting apartheid” as evidence for how his anti-Israel stance might be anti-Semitic).4 He ends his Sobran chapter by wearily admitting that he cannot defend his friend from the hysterical anti-Sobran chorus. The best he can muster is to call some of these people hysterical and complain about the double standard in which no one on the Left is pressured to disavow their zealots in the way that Buckley had been pressured to disavow Sobran.

Like I said: punching back weakly. What Buckley doesn’t understand is that the Jews are aware of this double standard, and they do their best to maintain it.

Patrick Buchanan

In the early 1990s, during the first Iraq war and around the time Patrick Buchanan was starting his run for the presidency, the former Nixon aide made the following unkind comments in the media about Jews and Israel.

There are only two groups that are beating the drums for war in the Middle East—the Israeli Defense Ministry and its amen corner in the United States.

The Israelis want this war desperately because they want the United States to destroy the Iraqi war machine. They want us to finish them off. They don’t care about our relations with the Arab world.

Buckley doesn’t find these statements anti-Semitic, but admits that they arouse suspicions. As is his wont, he nitpicks by mentioning the strong non-Jewish support for the war, but for the most part withholds judgment. Then, like the author of a first-rate pot-boiler, Buckley reveals Buchanan’s crack that the US Congress was “Israeli-occupied” territory.

Oof. Harder to defend, but Buckley takes a swing by bringing up how 1950s Senator William Knowland was once dubbed “the Senator from Formosa” for his staunch support of the Chiang Kai-shek government in Taiwan. Only Buckley can come up with analogies which, while superficially apt, are staggeringly inapt once we compare the miniscule influence over America’s Taiwan policy in 1953 versus 1992 Israel. (Again, punching back weakly.) Still, Buckley admits that Buchanan’s words could be construed as “encouraging resentment against the Israeli lobby.”

Then Buchanan offered the names of the worst warmongers, all of them Jewish: A. M. Rosenthal of the New York Times, Richard Perle, Charles Krauthammer, and Henry Kissinger. Now suspicious himself of Buchanan’s anti-Semitism, Buckley reminds his readers of four Christian pundits (James Jackson Kilpatrick, Frank Gaffney, George Will, and Alexander Haig) who were equally hawkish regarding the war, and doesn’t remind his readers of the mere two percent of the American population made up by Jews. And for the coup de grace Buckley reports Buchanan’s claim that in the war against Iraq, the fighting would be done by “kids with names like McAllister, Murphy, Gonzales, and Leroy Brown.”

This Buckley surmises to be a dig at Jews, as it most likely was. As such, he is willing to recount the resulting fallout of the Buchanan affair and let Buchanan and his allies fend for themselves. Curiously, he spends more mental effort adjudicating the anti-Semitism of Buchanan’s language (which he calls “clumsy forensic manners”—whatever that means) than whether there’s any truth behind it. Not surprisingly, Buchanan’s enemies—who are, to a man in In Search of Anti-Semitism, Jewish—do the exact same thing in the ensuing pages.

This leads Buckley to ramble at length about the nature of anti-Semitism and how not anti-Semitic a person can be and still be critical of Israel. Meanwhile, he does not object as Rosenthal, David Frum, Joshua Murvachik, Alan Dershowitz, Jack Newfield, and others called for Buchanan’s expulsion from polite society rather than prove that kids with names like Cohen, Goldstein, and Mandelbaum would serve proportionately in battle. It seems that for these people (and for Buckley himself to some extent) it matters more to not be deemed anti-Semitic than to tell the truth.

Buckley does give some space to Buchanan’s defenders, many of whom, such as Murray Rothbard and Paul Gottfried, were also Jewish. These people essentially attest to Buchanan’s sterling character because they knew him personally. A tepid argument, on par with Buckley’s claim at the end of this murky and disjointed chapter that Pat Buchanan may be an anti-Semite, but at least he’s not as bad as David Duke. Here we go again, punching back weakly.

The Dartmouth Review

In probably the most entertaining chapter in the book, Buckley sticks to his goyish guns and comes out on top. But this is hardly cause for victory laps since The Dartmouth Review affair reveals exactly how hysterical, stupid, and wrong the philo-Semitic Left can be, which is a ridiculously easy point to make. Basically, an unnamed writer for The Dartmouth Review thought it would be a clever prank (or insidious act of sabotage) to insert a little of Mein Kampf into the journal’s credo on page one. The rest of this sordid story involves Dartmouth’s Jewish president James Freedman and the college administration going scorched earth against the Review despite profuse apologies, the destruction of all offending issues, and the Review’s Black editor volunteering to take a polygraph test (which he passed) attesting that he was unaware of the text insertion.

Freedman organized an anti-hate rally. He publicized the affair in the national media. He charged that the Review “attacked blacks because they are black, women because they are women, homosexuals because they are homosexuals, and Jews because they are Jews.” He also, without any reason at all, ruled out the possibility of sabotage. The New Hampshire District Attorney was asked to do an investigation. Naturally, the Anti-Defamation League performed their own as well (in which they ultimately exonerated the Review).

Really, this chapter is mostly about strident philo-Semitism, and makes one question whether it belongs at all in book purportedly about anti-Semitism. It features screeching leftists desperately searching for anti-Semitism and not finding it. Nothing was ever proven beyond the complete idiocy behind this anti-Review witch hunt. Some college kid either played a wicked prank or had a warped sense of humor. That was it. Yet Freedman, the Dartmouth administration, the student body, national Jewish groups, and many in the national media could not stop baying like lunatic wolves around the stricken Review, likely as an example to show that any hint of anti-Jewish attitudes would be met with ruthless suppression.

Buckley, of course, sees through all of this. He did his own investigation, and after demonstrating that The Dartmouth Review had no record of anti-Semitism, was indeed pro-Israel, and had a history of Jewish writers and editors, he refused to disavow his protégés at Dartmouth. Buckley, who always liked to shift the charge of anti-Semitism leftward, also showed how the Dartmouth student journal Stet, which was openly Marxist and university-supported (unlike the Review), was far more anti-Israel than anyone was claiming The Dartmouth Review to be.

So, in this case, William F. Buckley stood up against the mob—but only when victims were as philo-Semitic as he was. In hindsight, hardly a triumph.

Gore Vidal and The Nation

In 1986, leftist and longtime Buckley nemesis Gore Vidal penned a piece in The Nation entitled “The Empire Lovers Strike Back,” which Buckley describes as “genuinely and intentionally and derisively anti-Semitic.” So, here it is at last. Anti-Semitism. No need to search for it anymore, apparently. And it is coming from the Left, Buckley is careful to note.

In his essay, Vidal characteristically hurls ad hominems like hand grenades and accuses Norman Podhoretz and his wife Midge Decter of shilling for Israel. They support American wars for Israel’s sake, they promote anti-Soviet paranoia for Israel’s sake, and they do everything they can to siphon billions out of the US Treasury for Israel’s sake. Of Podhoretz, he writes:

[H]is first loyalty would always be to Israel. Yet he and Midge stay on among us, in order to make propaganda and raise money for Israel—a country they don’t seem eager to live in. Jewish joke, circa 1900: A Zionist is someone who wants to ship other people off to Palestine.

There’s more:

Since spades may not be called spades in freedom’s land, let me spell it all out. In order to get military and economic support for Israel, a small number of American Jews, who should know better, have made common cause with every sort of reactionary and anti-Semitic group in the United States, from the corridors of the Pentagon to the TV studios of the evangelical Jesus-Christers. To show that their hearts are in the far-right place, they call themselves neoconservatives, and attack the likes of . . . me, all in the interest of supporting the likes of Sharon and Israel as opposed to the Peace Now Israelis whom they disdain. There is real madness here; mischief too.

Well, this take might be a tad schismatic and over the top, but is it wrong?5 Buckley, it seems, is too distracted by the schadenfreude of describing his longtime enemy being torn apart by neocons to even bother with such a tiresome question. Instead, he cheerfully reports how Norman Podhoretz blasted Vidal’s “foul anti-Semitic outburst” on the pages of Commentary, and then tried to elicit support from the Left against him. The Commentary editors sent out 29 letters to writers, journalists, and pundits in order to drum up outrage. The result was nearly comical. They received only eight responses, with only five criticizing The Nation or Vidal and the others either defending Vidal or attacking Commentary.

As if to cleanse himself of the distaste of having to discuss Gore Vidal, Buckley concludes this chapter with another winding treatise on to what extent anti-Zionism is indeed anti-Semitic (and to what extent should Zionism be considered racism). He includes a heated debate between Podhoretz and writers William Pfaff and Edwin Yoder, as well as a response to Podhoretz from the Jewish editor of The Nation. Buckley largely stays out of this dispute (unlike in the Sobran chapter in which he himself was a central figure). But he is aware of its central thesis, which is as applicable today as it was then:

The conviction among some Americans, such as Yoder and Pfaff, is that US policy is manipulated by Jewish Americans who are hell-bent on serving Israeli interests and are prepared to use the weapon of alleged anti-Semitism to immobilize their opponents. The other position is that there resides, in some people’s criticisms of Israel, an animus; that that animus is traceable to anti-Semitic dispositions; and that these dispositions need hosing down by moral exposure, for fear that that great fever might be rekindled which once gave us the Holocaust.

Unfortunately, Buckley does not clearly resolve this conflict, and his long march through the squish ends nowhere. It’s as if he is reluctant to decide for which side to support, and instead tries to clear out some swampy middle ground upon which he can defend regarding anti-Semitism. He does retain a person’s rights to make generalizations about groups as long as the motivation behind the generalizations is not to disparage. He also retains a person’s rights to speak out against perceived injustice. So, as long as someone is painstakingly polite and sensitive when criticizing certain Jews—who, of course, are acting as individuals and not as part of group—then that should be fine. Buckley includes several passages in which he had done exactly that in National Review.

This is what I call punching back weakly. A person can do this, but it will have likely little impact on the problem he is trying to solve. On the other hand, punching back hard, which is what Sobran, Buchanan, and Vidal did, will more likely produce results. They essentially treated Jews not as fellow Americans but as outgroup members, which makes it much easier to recognize patterns when such people act against American interests. Sobran, Buchanan, and Vidal put America’s interests first—even above their own reputations as writers. This is why they said something when a certain group of people with big noses and little hats kept picking American pockets and browbeating them whenever they had the temerity to notice. The inescapable conclusion, which is not lost on the neocons: the best way to serve American interests, therefore, is to have a sterner policy regarding people with big noses and little hats. But since Buckley is adamantly against this behavior (because Holocaust), he is de facto taking the latter, pro-Jewish position above without actually saying so. You have to slog through a lot of prose to get a concrete idea of where the man stands on all this. This is why In Search of Anti-Semitism is ultimately so disappointing despite its many elucidating virtues.

Conclusion

What does Buckley actually say regarding his true feelings on anti-Semitism? Four passages are most relevant, and lead one to conclude that he did possess a mild anti-White mindset and a much less mild pro-Jewish one. In one, eschewing anti-Semitism on the Right is a way to make the Left look bad (at least in the eyes of Jews).

The movement of anti-Semitism from unexamined prejudice of the political Right to inchoate agenda of the political Left is of epochal significance. The call, on the Right, fully to excrete its old prejudices is, accordingly, of first strategic and tactical importance.

Of course, Buckley doesn’t flip the scenario and wonder why Jews like Norman Podhoretz rarely try to prove their pro-gentile bona fides to people like Buckley.

In the second, he raises an argument often used to justify Israel’s special claims on America’s support and doesn’t refute it: that of the “religio-moral obligation of Christians to ensure the survival of the Jews.” We can assume that Buckley supported such an argument to some extent, and paid no attention to the lack of reciprocal concern of Jews for Christians.

In the third, he advises Joe Sobran to simply accept the double standard of Jewish racism in Israel and Jewish anti-racism everywhere else [emphasis mine]:

But any useful commentary on the Israeli phenomenon has got to begin by understanding that an explicitly Jewish state isn’t going to be a multicultural state. Much that goes on routinely in Israel, and certainly in the West Bank, would be forbidden under the US Constitution. Accept this, and much else is merely derivative.

This is coming from the man who condemned The American Mercury and Instauration for nativism and who sniffed that the “scientific racism” of Arthur de Gobineau and Houston Stewart Chamberlain was “an atheistic bastard child of late-nineteenth-century rationalism.” It appears that for William F. Buckley, some racism is better than others.

Finally, he truly believes that any kind of anti-Jewish feeling in a person’s heart could potentially lead to genocide without any external factors (such as the aggressive and malicious anti-White attitudes of many Jews) playing a role.

We have heard people distinguish between “country club” anti-Semitism and naked anti-Israelism and genocidal indifference. The pain comes from the historical knowledge that prejudice of the first kind can metastasize—and has done so, to be sure by mutation—into Auschwitz.

Like original sin, Buckley’s anti-Semitism is sui generis. It exists alone in the hearts of Whites and must be suppressed, or else the horrors of Hell will be unleashed.

This is his greatest mistake. He refuses to consider the sound historical reasons why the Nazis in the 1930s had anti-Jewish and anti-Leftist attitudes. He refuses to consider the disproportionately Jewish-controlled gulags and terror famines of the early Soviet period. He refuses to look at the prominent Jewish leadership of the 1920s–30s USSR and of leftist causes worldwide at that time. He refuses to look at the influential Jewish warmongering which helped cause the Second World War. He also refuses to connect the dots between Jewish culture movers such as Sigmund Freud, Franz Boas, and the Frankfurt School and the disastrous effects they had had on White gentile civilizations. Couldn’t it be that at least some of this was a deliberate attempt to harm gentile populations which were weakened by the philo-Semitism promoted so cogently by Buckley?

Most importantly, Buckley refuses to attribute the causes of Nazi atrocities to the obvious fact that the Germans were waging war on three fronts against three superpowers—as if such atrocities could have just as easily manifested during peacetime. Anyway, what war was the Jewish-dominated Soviet Union waging when it perpetrated terror famines in the 1920s and 1930s and murdered tens of millions?

Yes, In Search of Anti-Semitism was written pre-Culture of Critique and pre-200 Years Together. But it was not pre-Russophobia; it was not pre-Icebreaker or pre-Gulag Archipelago. The information was out there in 1992. Ignorance is no excuse for a man as erudite William F. Buckley. Anyway, I’m sure much of this was covered on the pages of The American Mercury and Instauration. So Buckley could have gone there if he had wanted to.

But he didn’t want to. He was too afraid to be called an anti-Semite.

Notes

  • Buckley was referring specifically to Pat Buchanan in this quote, but I generalized to Whites as a group since only White people could possibly be blamed for whatever happened as Auschwitz. Furthermore, all of the individuals Buckley adjudges in In Search of Anti-Semitism are White. We should remember that this book was published at a time when Black anti-Semitism in America was enjoying a renaissance, yet Buckley largely ignores this. The deadly Crown Heights riots of 1991 get only a passing reference in In Search of Anti-Semitism, while the widely reported anti-Jewish remarks of Professor Griff of the popular rap group Public Enemy—and his subsequent dismissal from the group—remained beneath Buckley’s notice (or contempt).
  • Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn appears once in the pages of In Search of Anti-Semitism, and not by anything written by Buckley. In Part Two of the book, Buckley features responses by friends and critics on the topic of anti-Semitism, and includes an open letter to him penned by Norman Podhoretz. Podhoretz in equal parts congratulates and chides Buckley for the perceived strengths and limitations of his essay and brings up Solzhenitsyn as an example of a supposed anti-Semite who is indeed pro-Israel. How anti-Zionism converges or does not converge with anti-Semitism is a question Buckley agonizes over at length in In Search of Anti-Semitism.
  • Buckley describes his break with The American Mercury, which was the first of many purges of the Right that he initiated:

After reading a particularly blatant issue of the Mercury (this was about 1958), I thought the time had come to act decisively, and accordingly addressed a note to the writers on the masthead of National Review and told them that those of them who were also on the masthead of the Mercury would need to choose from which masthead to retire. In almost all cases (there was only one exception), they stayed with us.

Buckley made this pronouncement regardless of the guilt or innocence of his writers—and boasted about it in In Search of Anti-Semitism. For more on Buckley’s purges of the Right, see my review of The Great Purge, published by the Radix Journal in 2015.

  • Sobran answered this charge in his sparkling response to Buckley’s original “In Search of Anti-Semitism” essay, which Buckley (to the eternal discomfiture of his Jewish neocon colleagues) included in this volume. Sobran’s contribution is easily the clearest, most direct, and most convincing section of the book. In it, he writes:

The South African analogy fails on several key points.

  1. We aren’t taxed to support South Africa. We are taxed to support Israel. We’re usually free to find fault with that which we are forced to pay for.

  2. There is no shortage of critics of apartheid; whereas Israel has not only a powerful lobby in America, but a big claque in the press constantly repeating its propaganda claims.

  3. Most pertinent here, no journalist takes a risk to his career by criticizing apartheid. The power of the pro-Israel forces not only siphons off American tax money, but seriously impedes free discussion of Israel in this country.

As usual, Joe Sobran is spot on when it comes to the Jews.

  • Of all the curious takes in this curious volume, one stands out as prescient, perhaps almost as much literally as in spirit—and it was made by Gore Vidal. It must have seemed utterly ridiculous at the time, but not so much today. Buckley summarizes:

The two-page piece by Vidal was entitled “The Empire Lovers Strike Back.” Ostensibly the essay was animated by Vidal’s concern to strengthen a point previously made by him, namely that the white races of the world needed to band together to meet the economic challenge of the yellow races by calling off the silly cold war that divided us and the Soviet Union, with which we should be allied (this was three years before the liberation of Eastern Europe).

So in 1986 Gore Vidal, homosexual left-wing gadfly and decades-long bête noir of the Right, proposed imperium for the White race to fend off the Yellow peril—and in the same breath called out treachery from the Jews. I never thought I would use the words “Gore Vidal” and “Dissident Right prophet” in the same sentence, but there you are. It makes me wonder what kind of dimension-bending, irony-resistant crystal ball this man was gazing into at the time, and if he had ever read Francis Parker Yockey.

The Bigotry of Borders: How Leftism Welcomes a Sea-Invasion by Savages

Caterpillars are racist. Fact. When a caterpillar is fully grown, its body is packed with tasty nutrients. But the caterpillar doesn’t want to share those nutrients with other insects, no matter how needy they are. This is ignorant and irrational xenophobia. Science teaches us that all insects have a common ancestor and are essentially the same under the cuticle. But caterpillars reject these plain scientific facts, embrace outdated separatism, and cling bitterly to crypto-fascist concepts like “species,” “family” and “order.” When a caterpillar meets a humble wasp that just wants a better life for itself and its offspring, the caterpillar will refuse to share its nutrients with its fellow insect.

Wasps on the waves: illegal migrants crossing the English Channel

Or at least, the caterpillar would refuse if it could. Fortunately, wasps are well-trained in the insect equivalent of antifa. They know how to overcome bigotry and hate with their stings. A well-judged dose of neurotoxin paralyzes the caterpillar’s xenophobic nervous system; the wasp lays its eggs without resistance; and wasp-larvae are soon happily sharing the caterpillar’s bounty. They’re also preventing the caterpillar from spreading its bigotry in its adult form. In the end, rather than one racist butterfly, there will be dozens of anti-racist wasps, all eager to fight hate and bring more xenophobic caterpillars to the right side of history. It’s a beautiful sight, isn’t it?

The Brotherhood of Birds

Well, it’s a beautiful sight from the wasp’s point of view. But not from the caterpillar’s. The same is true of cuckoos and their hosts. If birds had language, cuckoos would be passionate universalists, proclaiming the Brotherhood of Birds and condemning the bigotry of borders whereby reed-warblers and rock-pipits seek to keep their nests for their own offspring. If the Marxist biologist Stephen Jay Gould had been a cuckoo, he would have cooed the following: “Avian equality is a contingent fact of history. Equality is not true by definition; it is neither an ethical principle (though equal treatment may be) nor a statement about norms of social action. It just worked out that way. A hundred different and plausible scenarios for avian history would have yielded other results (and moral dilemmas of enormous magnitude). They didn’t happen.”

A cuckoo chick celebrates the Brotherhood of Birds

In other words, if Stephen Jay Gould had been a cuckoo, he would have been a liar. But he wasn’t a lying cuckoo: he was a lying Jew. He didn’t falsely claim that species does not exist and that all birds are the same under the feathers. Instead, he falsely claimed that race does not exist and that all humans are the same under the skin. When wasps want to exploit caterpillars, they use neurotoxin to paralyze the caterpillar’s resistance. When Jews want to exploit gentiles, they use words like “racism” and “xenophobia” and “hate.” The effect is the same: paralysis and the collapse of resistance to predation and parasitism.

In Britain, we can see this process playing out very clearly as illegal migrants flood across the English Channel and begin feasting on the bounty that awaits them on British soil. In 2019, there were about 1,800 such crossings, which was bad enough. In 2022, there will be about 40,000, which is considerably worse. By saying that, I am of course being racist and xenophobic and hate-filled. I’m also being truthful: the migrants all come from failed states where nothing flourishes but corruption and crime. They bring that corruption and crime with them, neatly stowed in their culture and in the genetics that underlies their culture. But these truths are treated as “hate-speech” by Jews and by the leftists who apply Jewish ideology as they pursue the all-important leftist goals of power and punishment. The power will be for themselves and the punishment will be for their enemies.

“Vote for us, you racist scum”

And whom do leftists regard as their enemies? Take the leftist Labour Party, whose name proclaims its founding purpose: to defend the working-class and promote its welfare. But Labour is now led by a lawyer, not by a labourer, so you shouldn’t be surprised that it has become an Orwellian party. In Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949), “The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation.” Orwell’s satire is modern British reality: the Labour Party now concerns itself with attacking its working-class voters and harming their interests. The Jewish Labour peer Maurice Glasman admitted in 2011 that his party opened Britain’s borders with malice aforethought, seeking to harm its own voters. He said: “In many ways [Labour] viewed working-class voters as an obstacle to progress. Their commitment to various civil rights, anti-racism, meant that often working-class voters … were seen as racist, resistant to change, homophobic and generally reactionary. So in many ways you had a terrible situation where a Labour government was hostile to the English working class.”

Decades too late, trusting and traditionally minded Labour voters got the message and finally understood that Labour had trashed tradition and turned against them. That’s why millions of them switched their votes to Boris Johnson’s Conservative party in 2019, handing him a big majority and trusting him instead to defend their interests. Once again their trust was betrayed. The Tories had no more interest in stopping mass migration than Labour had. They postured about stopping the ever-growing numbers of illegals crossing the channel and the results are plain to see: as noted, about 1,800 crossed in 2019 and about 40,000 will cross in 2022. Meanwhile, much larger numbers of non-Whites are entering the country legally from corrupt and crime-filled nations like India, Pakistan and Nigeria.

Muslim male, misogynist murder

And what happens to those who object to this flood of harmful non-White migration? They’re attacked by furiously buzzing leftists, who sting them with accusations of “racism” and “xenophobia” and “hate.” Take the leftist Rachel Youngman, a possibly Jewish physicist who is also “chair of charity Hibiscus which supports migrant women.” Ms Youngman was horrified when the non-leftist Nigel Farage accurately described the channel-crossers as “illegal migrants” and said that most of them are Albanian men “coming to join criminal gangs.” She said “the assumption of illegal actions by virtue of a nationality is a very dangerous route to take” and condemned Farage for “making an assumption that all people on boats are from Albania.” He’d assumed no such thing, of course, but Youngman is a leftist and not interested in the truth. Most illegal migrants are fit young men of low social value and high criminal potential, but Youngman didn’t want to talk about them. No, she wanted to talk about the small numbers of women among the illegal migrants. She said that these “women are at high risk of gender-based violence and trafficking.”

And yes, she was perfectly correct to say that. The women are indeed at high risk of “gender-based violence” and “trafficking.” And who will be committing the violence and carrying out the trafficking? That is a question that leftists do not want to face, but it was in fact answered by the world’s greatest leftist newspaper at the same time as Ms Youngman was attacking Nigel Farage:

A domestic violence victim who was stabbed to death by her former partner felt too scared to tell police the full extent of his abuse over fears that social services would take her baby away, an inquest has heard.

Raneem Oudeh, 22, was killed along with her mother, Khaola Saleem, 49, in Solihull in August 2018 by Janbaz Tarin, who had subjected Oudeh to a campaign of abuse and stalking in the run-up to the attack. The inquest heard Tarin once carved Oudeh’s name into his arm with a razor and would spend days sleeping in his car outside her house. …

Oudeh came to the UK in 2014 from Syria to escape war and join her mother. After befriending Oudeh at Solihull college, Tarin began “stalking and hassling her”, and she married another man in 2015, partly due to fears over her safety as a result of Tarin’s harassment. The marriage broke down and Oudeh brought up their son alone. By the summer of 2016, she was “down, upset – a single mum at the age of 20”, and still being “stalked” by Tarin, Norris said. Tarin harassed and frightened Oudeh into a relationship and the couple had an Islamic marriage ceremony in April 2017, Norris said.

Oudeh told her family that hours after the marriage, Tarin said to her: “We don’t have divorce in our culture. The day that you will be free from me is the day I will kill you.” … On 27 August 2018, Oudeh and her mother had gone to a shisha bar where Tarin accosted them and slapped Saleem. They rang the police but their response was delayed because of a firearms incident in the city, the inquest heard.

The pair then returned to Saleem’s address in Solihull where Tarin stabbed them both to death. He was convicted of the double murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum of 32 years after a trial in 2018. (Woman killed by ex feared losing access to child after reporting abuse, inquest told, The Guardian, 31st October 2022)

Rachel Youngman postures about her opposition to “gender-based violence and trafficking,” but she is actually working hard to increase both of them in the UK. As the no-nonsense male-supremacist Janbaz Tarin said: “We don’t have divorce in our culture. The day that you will be free from me is the day I will kill you.” He was referring to Muslim culture, where male supremacism, misogyny and “gender-based violence” all flourish. And here’s something else from the article: “the police response was delayed because of a firearms incident in the city.” The “incident” almost certainly involved more ethnic enrichers, just like this further example of “gender-based violence” from the same time as Ms Youngman’s attack on Nigel Farage:

Detectives are appealing for witnesses after a woman was raped in Bournemouth town centre. Dorset Police received a report at around 3.05am on Sunday October 30 that a woman was approached by four unknown men in Wootton Gardens and was raped. The men are described as Turkish with black beards and were all wearing black. The victim – a woman aged in her 20s – is being supported by specially-trained officers. (Woman raped in Wootton Gardens in early hours attack, The Bournemouth Echo, 30th October 2022)

Bournemouth is a genteel town on the English channel and once famous as a place where colonial officials retired after working hard to uphold White civilization in what is now called the Third World. At least, Bournemouth was a genteel town. Nowadays it’s enriched by ever-growing numbers of non-Whites who have migrated to Britain both legally and illegally. What would the colonial officials have predicted about that? They would have predicted exactly what has happened: the destruction of peace and prosperity. Whites once went by sea to civilize savages. Now savages come by sea to uncivilize Whites. Like America and France and many other Western nations, Britain is a juicy caterpillar offering no resistance as it is eaten alive by hungry larvae. Our paralysis is explained by the power of leftist rhetoric our own cowardice and desire to be seen as morally upright citizens in tune with elite thinking on race. But the recent success of “far-right” and anti-migrant parties in Italy and Sweden is proof that leftist rhetoric is losing its paralytic magic.

As rhetoric recedes, reality rises. The iron law of leftism is that it always most harms those it claims to care about most. For example, leftism claims that “Black Lives Matter” even as it sends the rates of murder and traffic-death soaring among Blacks all across America. Leftism claims to defend women and fight rape-culture, even as it opens the borders to uneducated and illiberal rapists from the most misogynist and male-supremacist cultures on earth. But that iron law of leftism will also apply to something that leftists genuinely do care about: their own power and privilege. Leftism is an ideology of lies that is now lying itself to death.

Is the Golden Age for Jews Coming to an End? Some Jews Think so.

A recent article published in The Jerusalem Post by Adam Milstein laments what appears to be the end of the Jewish golden age: “Why the Golden Age for Jews in America is Coming to an End” (10/19/2022).

Milstein attributes this apparent end to an array of factors, such as rising anti-Semitism, a fading memory of the Holocaust, ideological polarization and liberalism, growing support for the Palestinian people, resulting in an increasing number of personal attacks on Jews.

The author is concerned that American Jews are starting to experience the same type of violent attacks that European Jews have been experiencing for the past decade—with no apparent decline in Jewish power in the media and political arena. Nevertheless, Jews are fearful of wearing their kippot in public or anything that might identify them as Jewish.

Milstein also seems to view anti-Zionism as no different than anti-Semitic hatred of Israel, and he blames the progressive wing of the Democratic Party for much of it (presumably by those of “the Squad,” including outspoken Muslims such as Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib):

The “New Antisemitism,” also known as anti-Zionism or hatred of Israel as an acceptable stand-in for the classical hatred of Jews, initially gained currency in universities and in leftist intellectual circles. It has since metastasized to much of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Today, several U.S. congresswomen have claimed that Jewish Americans have dual national loyalties. These elected leaders call for boycott, divestment, and sanctions of Israel with a vehemence they reserve solely for the state of the Jews.

Milstein even blames some of his ethnic brethren who have become “useful idiots” for groups that oppose Israeli State policies:

Meanwhile, many American Jews serve willingly as useful idiots for groups that despise us, divided our community, and weaken our resolve, under the pretext of legitimate critique of the Israeli government policies. [my emphasis]

Milstein apparently thinks that any “legitimate” criticism of Israeli policies is just a pretext or ruse for expressions of anti-Semitism or as a means of weakening Jewish solidarity. Is it any wonder, then, why Jews and the State of Israel are so politically tone-deaf, especially when any legitimate or constructive criticism is immediately denounced as “anti-Semitic”?

The author urges Jews to “not give up,” and adds: “Now is the time to stand up, fight back with all our remaining might and hold antisemites accountable.”

Yet how does Milstein plan to “hold antisemites accountable”? Shall Jews continue to censor and de-platform anyone who says things they don’t like? Shall they continue to wield their monetary power and influence to drive their critics to the unemployment line? The recent Kanye West example once again shows their power to destroy people with ideas they don’t like—truth is irrelevant. Milstein never bothers to offer a serious analysis of Jewish power and how they use it, although I assume they will continue to use the same methods Jews have been using against those who dare to notice for the past century.

Milstein further writes:

We must form alliances with groups that share the same Judeo-Christian values of freedom and democracy, inspire today’s Jewish youth to be proud of their people and the Jewish homeland, and bring Israel back to the center of our Jewish life in the diaspora.

I think what he really means is that Jews need to persist in duping American Christians into thinking that Jews and the State of Israel are their best friends and that it’s totally in the interests of the U.S. to continue bankrolling Israel and supporting it to the hilt diplomatically. It’s somewhat deceptive as well for him to use the expression “Judeo-Christian values” when Jews today are almost always leading the charge against “freedom,” “free speech,” and “Christian values.”

Milstein hopes to inspire Jewish youth “to be proud of their people and the Jewish homeland” — the very thing he probably would never wish for Whites! Jewish ethnic solidarity is permissible for them but frowned upon and seen as “dangerous” whenever Whites do the same. Many Jews are unable see their own hypocrisy on such matters. They argue that Jews are a unique people who wish to preserve their ethnic identity, cultural traditions and religious distinctiveness. But so are the many unique peoples and distinct cultures of Europe and America. Why are only White countries expected to take in the millions of Third-World migrants?

Conservative Jew, Ben Shapiro, is one glaring example of what I write about. He publicly stated on his Twitter account: “And by the way, I don’t give a good damn about the so-called ‘browning of America.’ Color doesn’t matter. Ideology does” (June 16, 2017). Yet Shapiro would most certainly care if that same “browning” were occurring in his beloved Israel. He along with most Jews would protest loudly against any “open borders” policy or mass Third-World immigration when it comes to the State of Israel. He’d change his tune in a New York minute and suddenly give a “good damn” about any such “browning.” But not so when it comes to the Whites in America.

Throughout Milstein’s article there is not the slightest hint of any honest introspection. Not once is there any reflection that critics of Jews and Israel might have a point or that non-Jews could possibly have any interests that might conflict with Jewish interests. Milstein, of course, blames some Jews for not being pro-Zionist enough, and rebukes other Jews for siding with the enemies of Israel. He laments that “American Jewish communities are divided, disengaged, and declining in membership.” Yet nothing is said about how a disproportionate number of Jews have worked tirelessly to secularize America for the past 70 years, to promote mass immigration policies that displace White Americans from their own land, and to fund and foster movements that create moral decay within the U.S. (e.g., the civil rights movement, gay rights, feminism, porn industry, Transgender rights, soft-on-crime policies, etc.).

Typical of Jews, Milstein never stops to consider that hostility toward Jews might be the result of the kinds of liberal social engineering powerful Jewish organizations and individuals have engaged in for the past several decades. American Jews have largely used their wealth, power and influence to make America “safe” for themselves, but not for Whites. By means of anti-White propaganda and government racial policies, Jews have managed to turn Blacks and Hispanics against the founding stock of this nation.

Do Jews seriously think that Whites will forever cower and shut their mouths when they are continuously blamed for all the woes of the world? Why do Jews feel it’s a good policy to bite the very hand that feeds them? Did Jews ever stop to think that all those hostile and non-assimilating Muslim migrants they helped to flood Europe with might one day turn on them? Do they really believe their lives will improve when whitey’s gone, and they are left alone to fend off Blacks, Asians, Hispanics and Middle Easterners who don’t have an ounce of the racial guilt that Whites carry? Yes, I suppose they could fly to the promised land of Israel and escape the consequences of their own doing. But are most American Jews ready and willing to do this?

The reader’s comments to Milstein’s article are interesting. Many of them concede that their “golden age” has come to end. Some of them continue to express a typical perpetual victimhood mentality while others place the blame on themselves. One example is Joel Pachter who says the end of their golden age is due not to persecution, but to their rejection of Torah, and their support for progressive politics, and virtue signaling:

Indeed, the end of the second Jewish Golden Age has come about. But this time it is not due to pogroms. It is our own hands that have wrought this end. We have willfully replaced Torah with Progressivism as the sine qua non of our faith. Having elevated virtue signaling to the most important commandment, and kicked pride in Judaism to the curb, we have signed our own death warrant. This time, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

Kanye West’s recent Tweets about Jews has helped to further open discussion on these matters. To the chagrin of many Jews, his claims and their consequences have only served to prove the very point he was making in his Tweets. He complained about the hugely disproportionate influence and power that Jews have in Hollywood and in corporate media. Though Jewish advocacy groups tried to sway public opinion by describing such notions as “old anti-Semitic canards,” their actions demonstrated the very truth of West’s claims when one corporation after another cut all financial ties from him.

Jews could have sought to refute Kanye’s words rather than censor him. They could have engaged him in a public debate rather than destroy him financially. But this is not who Jews are. They claim, as does Milstein, to support “values of freedom and democracy,” but then turn against such ideas when anything unfavorable is said about them, and their treatment of the Palestinians certainly doesn’t suggest much concern for those values.

Besides, Jews know that to openly challenge the claims of West in a public forum would be self-defeating because Jewish dominance over the media, Hollywood, entertainment corporations, academia, the pharmaceutical industry, print media, and a sizable amount of the federal government could be easily proven. It’s only Jews who go off the reservation that admit what is commonly known and recognized about Jewish power.

So, is the “Golden Age” for Jews in America coming to an end? Perhaps, but as yet there is no sign that Jewish power in the media (witness what happened to Kanye West) and in political culture is waning. But if so, it’s because of persistent Jewish hostility to the White founding stock of this nation.

It’s another historic occasion of Jews overplaying their hand. Their paranoia of nationalism, especially of White racial solidarity, has driven them to the very problems they presumably sought to avoid – namely, anti-Semitism and an increasing number of Americans and Europeans who have recognized a pattern of Jewish cultural subversion. Jews don’t want people to ‘notice,’ but how can they not when Jews react in such a predicable fashion? What has been seen cannot be unseen.

The awakening among a growing number of people concerning Jewish power and subversion is a good sign for White Americans. Granted, we are only at the beginning stages, yet there are reasons to be hopeful that it will culminate in a greater and widespread acceptance of the very things we’ve said for so long. When Jews themselves start to worry that their best days are behind them, it’s a clear indicator that our efforts have not been in vain.

Regarding the Op-Ed of Aleksey Pavlov On the “Chabad Neo-Pagans”

A higher-up in the Security Council of Russia penned a op-ed in which he said that Chabad, the premier representatives of organized Jewry in the Slavlands, was up to no good.

JTA:

A Russian official has apologized after his deputy published an op-ed that referred to the Chabad-Lubavitch movement of Orthodox Judaism as a “neo-pagan cult” striving for “global domination.”

Top leaders of Chabad in Russia, who have been navigating a fine line in their relationship with the government during the country’s war on Ukraine, criticized the column published last week in a state magazine as antisemitic.

Russian chief rabbi, Berel Lazar, who is part of Chabad, called the column “a piece of vulgar antisemitism.” His top deputy warned that the column heralded “a new era in Russia’s relations with Jews.”

In the column, published in the Argumenty i Fakty weekly newspaper, Aleksey Pavlov, secretary of the Security Council of Russia, a government committee of experts, spoke of the need to perform “desatanization” in Ukraine, which Pavlov claimed had hundreds of neo-pagan cults. He included “the Chabad-Lubavitch sect,” as he called it, on a list of various religious groups that he said proved his point.

Mr. Pavlov, who has not been fired yet.

Look, first and foremost, we need to understand that people are confused. This is because there is a lot of confusion in society. This is especially true in the Slavlands. There are also too many hard, uncomfortable truths and shallow, ego-serving half-truths and lies eager to step in and offer people a cop-out nowadays.

People in Russia still don’t really understand what happened with the “Russian” Revolution.

They don’t understand what happened in the 90s with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

They don’t understand the West and who runs it and why. Case in point: lower-level spooks at least think that the Democrats like Russia and that the West is run by Fascist Nationalist Conservatives.

There is no comprehendible meta-narrative that society can get behind. Only ideological chaos and lots of informational shum (noise). As a result, you get Russians trying to explain things, but using idiosyncratic language that other Russians don’t really get or use let alone Westerners.

Calling Chabad a “neo-pagan” cult in an op-ed dedicated to attacking neo-paganism and associating it with Satanism and the Third Reich is a very strange way of wording things. Most people would characterize Chabad as a hardline Orthodox Hasidic Jewish organization with a lot of power in the Slavlands, including Russia. I suppose you could make the argument that invocation of Metatron in their rites is neo-paganistic? That is, because Chabad incorporates parts of Kabbalah (inverted and perverted Greek gnosticism that the Jews stole), and Kabbalah practice involves invoking angel-like entities … yeah no, the logic is too strained and I give up trying to make it work.

What Pavlov was really trying to do was to single out Chabad as a particularly problematic sect and by doing so not offend other Jews. The Chabadists incorporate Kabbalah, the Talmud and the Old Testament into their religion while other groups of religious Jews rely on differing combinations of these source materials. All three are examples of Jewish supremacist literature.

Bizarrely, despite calling out Chabad, he refused to make the obvious observation that the ruling regime in post-Maidan Kiev has been almost totally neocon. Twisting himself into pretzels, he decided to characterize Arseniy Yatsenyuk, Victoria Nuland’s (the yenta who organized the overthrow and the power arrangement afterwards along with her Jewish husband) pet poodle, as a “Scientologist” and blamed his belief in Hubbard’s sci-fi LARP for the situation in Ukraine.

This is, to put it mildly, yet another example of willful blindness regarding the giant Hebrew elephant in the room.

He doesn’t look like a Presbyterian, does he?

Furthermore, Yats claims to be Greek Catholic and not a Scientologist. As an organized force, the Greek Catholics in Ukraine are rabid Russophobes who hate Orthodox civilization. Regardless, adopting a religion doesn’t change your blood and does nothing to divert the Jewish ethnic grievance agenda.

Let’s go back to the original article about the security council man who called out the Jews.

Nikolai Patrushev, a high-ranking official for the security council, said in a statement issued Friday that the column did not represent an official government position.

“I apologize for the op-ed, which contained several erroneous statements about the followers of Chabad-Lubavitch,” read the statement. “This interpretation represented only Alexey Pavlov’s personal point of view and in no way represents that of the Security Council of Russia. Talks have been had with the writer of the op-ed.”

Pavlov was, if anything, a bit befuddled by the situation. More sober minds clearly understand that the modern conspiracy against Russia is almost entirely spear-headed by the Chosenites, who appear to be motivated by an ethnic and religious hatred of Russia.

Case in point: Jamie Raskin, a Jewish Congressman from Maryland, recently made a shocking statement about why he supports the war against Russia. It’s all about destroying a country dedicated to traditional Christian values—World War Trans:

And this:

Moscow right now is a hub of corrupt tyranny, censorship, authoritarian repression, police violence, propaganda, government lies and disinformation, and planning for war crimes. It is a world center of antifeminist, antigay, anti-trans hatred, as well as the homeland of replacement theory for export. In supporting Ukraine, we are opposing these fascist views, and supporting the urgent principles of democratic pluralism.

This is quite the escalation in rhetoric. It’s one thing to openly hate on Russia for not being a Liberal Democracy and for historically always preferring the far better political model of Authoritarianism, which Joe Biden has routinely done. It is another to take another step forward and admit that this is about the Jews’ obsession with pushing rainbow flags (the literal Biblical symbol of the covenant that their God Yahweh wants to impose on the other nations of the world under the Noahide laws [Genesis 9:13]) on a hapless peasant population.

The episode is notable because of the force with which Jewish leaders inside and outside Russia responded. Since Russia invaded Ukraine in February, Chabad’s leaders in Russia have walked a fine line amid a crackdown on free speech in the country. They refrained from the open embrace that many other religious leaders showed — and that Moscow’s former chief rabbi, who was not part of Chabad, said he faced pressure to demonstrate before he fled the country. Instead, they have expressed displeasure about the war while not denouncing Russian president Vladimir Putin and while continuing to serve Russian Jews, even as tens of thousands of them have left amid deteriorating conditions there.

And now, a few words on Chabad. Like most groups of organized Jews, they use legal warfare against those who stand up to their power. For example, a group calling itself “Citizens of the USSR” got wind of what Chabad preaches about the goyim — that we ought to be slaves, and, in some cases, outright killed if we pose a threat to the Jews’ plans — started a protest action in which they entered a Chabad building and started demanding that the rabbi start explaining why they were running a blatant Jewish supremacist sect. (FYI, the Citizens are a group that insists that the USSR isn’t over and that a Judeo-Mason conspiracy runs the Russian Federation out of London).

Sadly, I can’t find the video on YouTube anymore.

Things did not turn out well for the group in the end. They were arrested on the grounds of an alleged assassination plot on a rabbi. No money was offered to the hired killer, only, allegedly, a knife and some nylon stockings and a position as head of the future, newly re-instated KGB of Krasnodar Krai. Several members of the organization were arrested and it was banned in Krasnodar. That is the standard narrative, but the truth of the whole unsavory matter was much, much darker, as the Jews themselves admit.

Here, listen to them gloat about what they pulled on these hapless peasants.

JTA:

Authorities in Russia staged the death of a rabbi as part of a sting operation that ended with the arrest of two alleged terrorists who are said to have ordered to have him killed.

The operation has been ongoing since last year, the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs revealed last week. The ministry neither named the suspects, who were identified only as being 60 and 70, nor indicated when they had been arrested.

Two old people with nostalgia for the USSR were entrapped by secret police working on behalf of the Jews.

The suspects are leaders of an extremist group known as Citizens of the USSR, which does not recognize the dissolution of the Soviet Union, according to the ministry.

Last year, members of that movement began targeting and threatening the Jewish community of Krasnodar, a city in southern Russia, the ministry said. Murder was among the threats.

An undercover counterterrorism agent approached the suspects and offered to kill Rabbi Aryeh Leib Tkatch, chairman of the Jewish Community of Krasnodar, if they accepted him into their ranks as a senior member. The suspects agreed and a police makeup artist worked with Tkatch on a photoshoot in which his death was staged.

The poor bastards didn’t know what the hell even happened to them. Typical entrapment plot.

The agent presented the photos to the suspects as proof he had done their bidding. They were arrested after giving the agent certificates accepting him into their ranks as a field commander, the ministry’s report said.

Sickening stuff. False flags and hoaxes to terrorize the goyim.

This, however, is starting to become an article on the state of Semitism in Russia, which is beyond the scope of what I wanted to cover for today. I do promise an article detailing the power of Jewish censorship in Russia soon though. In short, you can speak out openly about the Jews and you have a lot of leniency from the government to do so even though you may find yourself less employable than before. Also, despite the rightward turn and “basification” of Russian society in recent months, the needle has not moved on the Jewish issue, despite what the hyperventilating headlines allege. This is a HUGE problem and yet more proof of the fact that this looming showdown with NATO isn’t being taken as seriously as it should be. The Russian people need to learn the truth about who threw the coup in St. Petersburg, who ran the Gulags, who starved the Russian southwest, who then broke up the USSR and looted it, who orchestrated the coup in Kiev, who pushes America to war against Russia now and who wants Russians broken, destitute and dead and think its funny.

Few speak about the Jewish problem, even among the right, sadly. It’s considered bad taste. Trust me, I’ve tried to get them to start talking about it, but they resist me and call me a sovok for trying to spread my so-called conspiracy theories.

Seriously, the state of Semitism and counter-Semitism in Russia is worth a separate post.

Anyways, it’s rather strange that Pavlov called out Chabad in particular. Of all the organizations of organized Jewry, Chabad is the strongest in the Slavlands. Those memes of Putin having allegedly “sold out to the Jews” being spammed on the internet all feature him smiling and spending time with Berel Lazar, who is affectionately known as “Putin’s Rabbi”.

But you know who else Berel is close to? The Chabad-attending Kushners. And we all know how that worked out for Trump and his country.

Both Trump, Hitler, and, maybe Putin as well, appear to have fallen for the Jewish trick of “mitosis” by which the Jews divide into factions and pretend to want to cut a deal with the goyim against another faction, supposedly a rival Jewish faction. Hitler made friends with the Zionists against the Bolsheviks. Trump with Chabad against the New York Times Jews. And Putin with Chabad too, supposedly against the Neocons in the West.

Point being, usually politicians or bureaucrats only kick down as opposed to punching up. Why Pavlov decided to pen that op-ed is anyone’s guess. His boss soon had to apologize for him regardless. Encouragingly, he wasn’t fired on the spot, which is extremely telling. Put simply, the Jewish mafia, while powerful, does NOT have as much power in Russia as it does in the West, or in Ukraine for that matter.

If I wanted to, I could have honed in on the fact that it’s been 5 days and a prominent anti-Chabadite hasn’t been fired from his position. That, by the standards or our days, is a victory, friends.

Aboriginal Worship and the Flight from Whiteness in Australia

Anti-White activism in Australia is becoming increasingly strident

Results from the 2021 Australian Census revealed an astonishing 25 per cent jump in the nation’s Aboriginal population over the preceding five years. This confirmed the trend of the 2016 census showing a 19 per cent surge in the Aboriginal population. Over the last decade the self-identifying “Aboriginal” percentage of the population of Australia has increased from 2.5 to 3.2 per cent. This massive increase in Aboriginal self-identification is not the result of a sudden surge in Aboriginal fertility, but is the culmination of the establishment of an intellectual, political and economic climate that encourages White Australians to shed their racial identity. Like other Western societies buffeted by waves of non-White immigration and anti-White intellectual and political activism, Australia is now a nation where White people are actively discriminated against, and where significant social and financial advantages accrue to non-White people.

Commentators in the leftist media lauded the leap in Aboriginal self-identification, claiming the statistics show Australians finally feel safe to identify as Aboriginal. In truth, the growing embrace of Aboriginal identity and flight from Whiteness is symptomatic of the anti-White trajectory of Australian society as a whole. Commentator Andrew Bolt sees the dramatic increase in the number of White Australians calling themselves Black as evidence of Australia’s “toxic anti-white racism.”

It’s now so embarrassing to be white that another 90,000 Australians have decided to call themselves black instead. … Or let’s put it more kindly: it’s now so chic to be black that these 90,000 Australians have called themselves Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander for the first time in the last census. The 2021 Census is dramatic evidence of the new anti-White racism — and of the growing fraud that comes from lavishing privileges on people claiming to be Aboriginal, with few questions asked. … The 2016 Census found at least 40,000 people who claimed to be Aboriginal or Islander but had likewise chosen not to in the previous survey.

Still, who can blame them from seizing any excuse — however remote or imagined — to stop being white? Check woke bookshops that stock white-hostile titles such as White Fragility, or Back to Black. Or consult the Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, which last year published an insanely racist paper calling “whiteness… a malignant, parasitic like condition” that “renders its hosts’ appetites voracious, insatiable.” So it’s no surprise that the biggest rises in people now claiming to be Aboriginal are in our wokest states. In Victoria, the rise was a spectacular 37 per cent in five years. NSW was second with 29 per cent. In contrast, the Northern Territory – with the biggest proportion of Aborigines – the rise was just 5 per cent.

Back in 2009 Bolt wrote two columns pointing out that individuals with tiny amounts of Aboriginal ancestry (or none) were taking advantage of a raft of government scholarships and affirmative action job vacancies by choosing to identify exclusively as Aborigines. Bolt claimed these people were choosing to identify as Black to leverage their career and social advancement.

For pointing out this this rather obvious fact, and that this increasing Aboriginal self-identification had been encouraged by the multitude of financial and professional incentives available to those identifying as Aboriginal, Bolt was hauled into court and found guilty of violating Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act (the enactment of which was a direct result of Jewish activism). In September 2010 nine of the “Aboriginal” people Bolt identified in his articles commenced legal proceedings against him and his employer the Herald-Sun. The complainants, represented gratis in the Federal Court by the Jewish barristers Ron Merkel and Herman Borenstein, sought an apology, legal costs and a gag on republishing the articles and blogs and “other relief as the court deems fit.” In the trial Merkel argued in reference to Bolt’s articles that “this kind of thinking led to the Nuremberg race laws and that Bolt had adopted a eugenic approach to Aboriginality.”

In his ruling for the complainants in 2011 the presiding judge Mordy Bromberg (also Jewish) declared that: “I am satisfied that fair-skinned Aboriginal people (or some of them) were reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to have been offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated by the imputations conveyed by the newspaper articles. … Even if I had been satisfied that Section 18C conduct was capable of being fair comment, I would not have been satisfied that it was said or done by Mr Bolt reasonably and in good faith.” Thus “good faith” as interpreted by a judge is now the criteria for acceptable speech about race in Australia — with this to be determined by the likes of Justice Bromberg who is a prominent member of the Australian Jewish community. This point was not lost on Bolt at the time, who noted that “And which judge becomes relevant, doesn’t it? Or are we not allowed to suggest that, either?”

Today, the increasingly anti-White tenor of Australian society, and proliferating government programs designed to redress Aboriginal social dysfunction (currently costing taxpayers around $33 billion annually, or some $55,000 per “Aborigine”) are fueling a population boom, with those with negligible amounts of Aboriginal ancestry (or none) self-identifying as indigenous to access ever-expanding indigenous welfare programs, scholarships and career opportunities. The practice of White Australians self-identifying as Aboriginal has become so widespread that Sydney’s Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council recently made a complaint to a government anti-corruption body about the number of Sydney University students identifying as Aboriginal by using just statutory declarations rather than producing “a confirmation of identity letter from a Local Aboriginal Land Council or other Indigenous community-controlled organisation, showing they meet the Commonwealth three-part identity test: that they are of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent, identify as such, and their identity is accepted by a community in which they live or previously lived.”

Bruce Pascoe: Poster Child for the Benefits of Fleeing Whiteness 

The remarkable professional and financial benefits that can accrue to White Australians willing to discard their racial identity to become Aboriginal is illustrated by the spectacular rise of “historian” Bruce Pascoe. Before his rise to fame, Pascoe was the obscure author of works such as the 1988 novel Fox, about a “fugitive searching for his Aboriginality.” Critics at the time suggested it would have been a better book had Pascoe not been White: “Pascoe is, after all, imagining the psyche of an Aboriginal person. … He writes as a humane, informed liberal, but as a white man as well.” Around this time Pascoe started identifying as Aboriginal, even though two Aboriginal groups call him a fraud and his genealogy shows all his ancestors are of English descent. But now as an Aborigine, Pascoe has enjoyed wild career and financial success: hailed as an “elder,” promoted as an “Aboriginal historian” by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, given grants for Aboriginal enterprises and made a professor of “Indigenous Agriculture” by the University of Melbourne. “Indigenous Agriculture” is a fake discipline invented by Pascoe using so-called evidence to claim Aborigines were farmers in his widely acclaimed and promoted 2014 book Dark Emu.

Fake Aborigine, bad historian, and all-round grifter Bruce Pascoe

In Dark Emu Pascoe contends that, rather than being Stone Age nomadic hunter-gatherers as long assumed, Australia’s Aborigines had settled towns and practiced agriculture. Pascoe based his ahistorical thesis on dubious sources and legitimate sources taken out of context. In their critical analysis of Dark Emu, the academics Peter Sutton and Keryn Walshe demolish Dark Emu noting the book is poorly researched, not fully sourced, and, when it is sourced, Pascoe does “not cite the relevant extract from a source in its correct context, thus skewing the interpretation.”[1] They also note Pascoe’s tendency to generalize from local examples to incorrectly claim that particular technologies were used across the whole Australian continent. They and anthropologist Ian Keen conclude that Pascoe’s thesis is a vast exaggeration: that Aborigines were fundamentally Stone Age hunter-gatherers who practiced some rudimentary forms of agriculture on an insignificant scale.[2] Sutton and Walshe also chastised Pascoe for his implicit acceptance of the (now verboten) anthropological notion that settled agricultural societies are superior to those of nomadic hunter-gatherers. Even some Aboriginal activists like Hannah McGlade criticized Dark Emu, insisting the book is “misleading and offensive to Aboriginal people and culture” and “is not very truthful or accurate.”[3]

Lying to schoolchildren

These criticisms have not prevented Pascoe’s work from being showered with awards, aggressively promoted by the leftist media (prompting sales of over 250,000 copies) and cited as a valid historical source in textbooks used in Australian schools. One such textbook, citing Pascoe, falsely claims, for example, that Aborigines “actively managed the land in complex ways and so were not nomadic hunters-gatherers.”[4] Another textbook tells students:

Over 30,000 years ago, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples were baking bread in Australia. They developed this skill alongside their ability to harvest seeds and grains. Historian Bruce Pascoe says this makes them the world’s oldest bakers – they were baking 15,000 years before the next known bakers, the ancient Egyptians. How do we know this? One way is through the research of historians like Pascoe. Pascoe has written a lot about how they developed farm practices around Australia. These practices enabled them to settle in specific regions, and rely less on hunting and foraging. They were able to manage the land to create food for their communities.[5]

Such dishonesty is symptomatic of how Aboriginal history is taught in Australian schools. Students are fed a romanticized view devoid of any criticisms. Because the culture of Australia’s Aborigines was the most primitive in the world – they remained Stone Age hunter-gatherers right up until contact with Europeans – the focus, in recent years, has been to stress the opposite: how “sophisticated” and “complex” Aboriginal societies and culture were (and supposedly remain) today.

A sampling of school history textbooks reveals that, while offering abundant criticisms of Europeans and European culture, authors flatly refuse to offer any criticisms whatever of Aboriginal culture and society. Instead, Aborigines are lavished with unwarranted praise for the supposed complexity and sophistication of their culture. “First Nations Peoples of Australia” (always capitalized) were, it is insisted, “highly skilled in dealing with environmental challenges,” were “advanced cultures with considerable populations,” had “complex political, social and legal structures,” were “well fed, fitter and probably healthier than their European counterparts,” and developed “sophisticated farming and food-production methods.” They were also the world’s first astronomers: “They used the stars to create complex seasonal calendars, which included details on the position of the stars and constellations.”[6] Unfortunately for those students interested in learning about the exact nature of these “complex” structures, such concepts are declared “sacred” and, consequently, “They can only be shared with the initiated, and cannot be described in a textbook.”[7]

While the early British leaders of the Australian colonies receive scant praise and abundant moral censure, the same textbooks laud the “great Genghis Khan” as “a brilliant, merciless leader who built a vast empire, slaughtering millions in his quest to rule the world.” The Mongol leader’s “determination to succeed combined with a charismatic personality, intelligence, courage and ruthlessness” saw him “lead his ferocious Mongol army on the largest military expansion in history.” The Mongols are commended for having “fostered cultural development in the arts, ensured peace among their peoples, respected different cultures and religions, and improved trade.”

Genghis Khan is granted the epithet of “great” despite the fact his “troops killed many and used the most brutal tortures imaginable,” and the “more resistance they encountered from an opponent, the more horrible the treatment the opponent received from the Mongol army.” In fact, we are told:

Genghis Khan’s cruelty was unprecedented. At the battle of Kalka River in 1223, the Mongol army defeated the Russian forces, wiping out 90 per cent of the soldiers. Mstislav of Kiev and his army retreated and surrendered in return for their safe treatment. Once they surrendered, however, the Mongol army slaughtered the Russian force. They executed Mstislav of Kiev and buried the remaining noble prisoners alive under a victory platform, enjoying a victory feast on top of them as the nobles suffocated beneath them.[8]

None of this prevents Genghis Khan and the Mongols (as a non-White group) from receiving vastly more acclaim (and less moral censure) than the European explorers, founders and leaders of the Australian nation. When the British arrived in Australia in the late eighteenth century these benighted fools purportedly “failed to recognise that the First Nations Peoples of Australia were advanced cultures who actively managed the land.” Aborigines are also (laughably) said to have been more socially progressive than the British. One textbook informs students that “British Women in the colonial period were treated as second-class citizens. … Women were expected to obey their husbands and to bear children. In contrast, the women of the First Nations of Australia held equal status and power in their communities from the distant past until today.”[9]

In reality, Aboriginal societies were, prior to and after contact with Europeans, extremely abusive to women and children and generally violent. In 1995, paleopathologist Stephen Webb published his analysis of 4,500 individuals’ bones from mainland Australia going back 50,000 years. These bone collections were at the time being handed over to Aboriginal communities for re-burial, which stopped any follow-up studies.

He found highly disproportionate rates of injuries and fractures to women’s skulls, with the injuries suggesting deliberate attack and often attacks from behind, perhaps from domestic squabbles. In the tropics, for example, female head injury frequency was about 20–33%, versus 6.5–26% for males. The most extreme results were on the south coast, from Swanport and Adelaide, with female cranial trauma rates as high as 40–44%—two to four times the rate of male cranial trauma. In desert and south coast areas, 5–6% of female skulls had three separate head injuries, and 11–12% had two injuries.[10]

The high rate of injuries to female heads was very different from the results from studies of other peoples. These findings, according to anthropologist Peter Sutton, confirm that serious armed assaults were common in Australia over thousands of years prior to the arrival of Europeans.[11]

From 1788, Europeans arriving in Australia were shocked at the extreme physical violence Aboriginal men inflicted on their women. Watkin Tench, a British marine officer who arrived on the First Fleet, noticed a young woman’s head “covered by contusions, and mangled by scars.” She had a spear wound above her left knee caused by a man who dragged her home to rape her. Tench wrote: “They are in all respects treated with savage barbarity; condemned not only to carry the children, but all other burthens. They meet in return for submission only with blows, kicks and every other mark of brutality.”[12] Tench observed that when an Aboriginal man “is provoked by a woman, he either spears her, or knocks her down on the spot; on this occasion he always strikes on the head, using indiscriminately a hatchet, a club, or any other weapon, which may chance to be in his hand.” British soldier William Collins recounted how “We have seen some of these unfortunate beings with more scars upon their shorn heads, cut in every direction, than could be well distinguished or counted.”[13]

In 1802 an explorer in the Blue Mountains in New South Wales wrote how, for a trivial reason, an Aboriginal “took his club and struck his wife’s head such a blow that she fell to the ground unconscious. After dinner … he got infuriated and again struck his wife on the head with his club, and left her on the ground nearly dying.”[14] In 1825, the French explorer Louis-Antoine de Bougainville observed that “that young girls are brutally kidnapped from their families, violently dragged to isolated spots and are ravished after being subjected to a good deal of cruelty.”[15]

George Robinson observed in the 1830s that Aboriginal men in Tasmania “courted” their women by stabbing them with sharp sticks and cutting them with knives prior to rape.[16] A contemporaneous account by an ex-convict named Lingard noted that: “I scarcely ever saw a married woman, but she had got six or seven cuts in her head, given by her husband with a tomahawk, several inches in length and very deep.”[17] Explorer Edward John Eyre similarly observed that “women are often sadly ill-treated by their husbands and friends. … They are frequently beaten about the head, with waddies [clubs], in the most dreadful manner, or speared in the limbs for the most trivial offences. … Few women will be found, upon examination, to be free from frightful scars upon their head, or the marks of spear wounds about the body. I have seen a young woman, who, from the number of these marks, appeared to have been riddled with spear wounds.”[18]

None of these accounts are included in any of the history textbooks currently used in Australian schools. Also conspicuously absent is one of the best primary sources we have for understanding Aboriginal social and cultural practices around the time of European colonization: the account of William Buckley, who lived for over three decades with an Aboriginal tribe around Port Phillip Bay in present-day Victoria in the early nineteenth century. Buckley witnessed constant raids, ambushes and massacres and noted how, in night raids, the Aboriginal tribes he encountered “destroyed without mercy men, women and children.” Buckley also described the practice of cannibalism between the warring tribes of the area, including the practice of eating flesh from the legs of slain warriors which “was greedily devoured by these savages.” Buckley says in one tribal battle he lost his brother-in-law and the man’s wife, along with their blind son, who was then roasted and eaten. He mentions their practice of mortuary cannibalism for love, relating that “they eat also the flesh of their own children to whom they have been much attached should they die a natural death.”

They have a brutal aversion to children who happen to be deformed at their birth. I saw the brains of one dashed out at a blow, and a boy belonging to the same woman made to eat the mangled remains. The act of cannibalism was accounted for in this way. The woman at particular seasons of the moon, was out of her senses; the moon—as they thought—having affected the child also; and certainly it had a very singular appearance. This caused the husband to deny his being the father, and the reason given for making the boy eat the child was, that some evil would befall him of he had not done so.[19]

Such accounts are assiduously hidden from Australian schoolchildren, and Jewish anti-White activists like the late Colin Tatz flared up indignantly when anyone dared to publicly reference Buckley’s detailed eyewitness description of Aboriginal cannibalism. Tatz falsely insisted that “we do not have a single eyewitness account of Aboriginal cannibalism” and when the Australian politician Pauline Hanson referred to the Aboriginal practice of cannibalism, he equated it with “the blood libel against the Jews,” angrily claiming “the Hanson vilification about cannibalism is not of the same magnitude or consequence, but it is very much in the same genre.”[20]

Noting that extreme violence against women and children in Aboriginal communities has a venerable history, and is currently at “catastrophic levels,” Stephanie Jarrett notes that: “It is important to acknowledge [the] link between today’s Aboriginal violence and violent, pre-contact tradition, because until policymakers are honest in their assessment of the causes, Aboriginal people can never be liberated from violence. … Deep cultural change is necessary, away from traditional norms and practices of violence.”[21] Aboriginal woman Bess Price, in her forward to Jarrett’s book pointed out that “my own body is scarred by domestic violence” and noted that “Aboriginal people have to acknowledge the truth. We can’t blame all of our problems on the white man.”[22]

The “Genocide” Charge

Unlike Price, the authors of all the textbooks currently used in Australian schools are content to blame all Aboriginal problems on Europeans whom they charge with “genocide.” Students are informed in one text book that while previous generations of historians (i.e., the rational ones who weren’t slaves to today’s regnant anti-White ideology) used words like “settled, settlement and settler” to describe the arrival of Europeans in Australia, modern (woke) historians much prefer “words such as colonist and invader.” These modern historians, we are informed, also “use the word genocide to describe the experience of First Nations Peoples of Australia.”[23]

Today’s anti-White historians (and the activist authors of school textbooks) straddle a muddy line between contradictory narratives: on the one hand we are told that British settlers sneakily (and immorally) “stole” the land of the indigenous peoples, while, at the same time, the British arrival in Australia is characterized as an “invasion.” Yet if we accept the “invasion” thesis, then it follows that Australian territory was conquered in a war (and not stolen) by the British — just as warring Aboriginal tribes conquered each other’s territory.

Brainwashed self-hating Whites enthusiastically pushing Jewish activist narratives

There has even been a proposal by the current Labor government to include an exhibit for Aboriginal victims of the “Frontier Wars” at the Australian War Memorial in Canberra. By thereby formalizing the notion of a war between Aborigines and Europeans, Aboriginal activists are inadvertently undermining the long-cherished notion of “stolen land” and its propagandistic utility. The Australian War Memorial Act 1980, under which the memorial operates, is clear that the memorial is dedicated only to those who “died in active service in war or in warlike operations by members of the defence force,” which “includes any naval or military force of the crown.” It is certainly not to remember victims of crimes, reprisals and acts of self-defense by Whites, who were primarily pastoralists. Andrew Bolt makes the point that if the memorial is “so keen to honour Aborigines who died fighting for their tribes, then why include only those who died fighting whites? Why not include the many more who died in wars with other Aboriginal tribes?” He notes how:

Tribal warfare was relentless. William Buckley recalled a corroboree with another tribe ended in a fight that killed 20 people. Shortly afterwards, two boys of his tribe were killed. Then three women and an unspecified number of “boys” died in a war with five other tribes. Much later Buckley’s tribe lost at least two women and a man in another battle, but that night ambushed the enemy camp and killed three of theirs. The other tribe then fled, leaving its wounded “to be beaten to death by boomerangs”, with the bodies then “mutilated in a shocking manner” and cooked. And on it went. Multiply the experience of this one tribe by the 500 others. As historian Geoffrey Blainey has noted, the death rates in tribal wars were in some areas clearly worse than what Europeans suffered in their world wars.

All currently-used history textbooks in Australian schools charge Europeans with “genocide” against the Aborigines. As I have previously discussed, the origins of this “genocide” charge can be traced to a coterie of Jewish academics and intellectuals including, most prominently, Latrobe University historian Tony Barta and the late Sydney University genocide studies professor and “anti-racism” crusader Colin Tatz. In collaboration with Winton Higgins, Anna Haebich, and A. Dirk Moses, these Jewish intellectual activists succeeded in ensuring that “genocide is now in the vocabulary of Australian politics.” The word “genocide” was first used regarding Australia’s Aborigines by Barta at an academic conference in 1984 in a presentation entitled “After the Holocaust: Consciousness of Genocide in Australia” where he proclaimed that “genocide had indeed occurred here.”[24] For Barta, a laudable focus on “the Holocaust” had “inhibited consciousness of the violent past that had enabled us to meet on ground named after the colonial secretary, Lord Sydney. The question was equally suppressed where I had settled with my family, the city named after Lord Melbourne.”[25]

The policies of the British administrators of the Australian colonies of the late-eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and those of Australian state and federal governments in the twentieth century, cannot, by any objective standard, be regarded as “genocidal” as the term was defined by Raphael Lemkin, the Polish-Jewish jurist who coined it in 1944. The problem for anti-White activists has been that Lemkin’s definition, subsequently adopted by the UN, relies heavily on “intent to destroy,” which has proved problematic in an Australian context where, “without being able to prove intent on behalf of the colonial administration, the case for genocide is weak.”[26] Barta, therefore, simply redefined “genocide” to make it encompass the totality of European colonial societies like Australia. His redefinition was “a way of obviating the centrality of state policy and premeditation” embedded in Lemkin’s ‘hegemonic intentionalist’ definition of genocide.”[27]

Barta’s redefinition of genocide enabled him to conclude that “Australia — not alone among the nations of the colonized world — is a nation founded on genocide.” He advocates this message “be the credo taught to every generation of schoolchildren—the key recognition of Australia as a nation founded on genocide.”[28] And, as mentioned, the intellectual activism of Barta and others has succeeded in embedding this ahistorical notion in school curricula and textbooks where White Australian children are encouraged to loathe their race, their ancestors and to disregard their incredible achievements. The Sydney Jewish Museum is proudly playing its part in training Australian teachers “not only about the Holocaust” but also about “the Australian genocide.”[29]

Recalling how he was inspired by Barta’s genocide thesis, the late Jewish academic and activist Colin Tatz claimed it “set my wheels going about seeing not parallels or analogies but echoes of the Holocaust here — at the very least making me realize that genocide doesn’t have to be a sharp annihilatory episode confined to 1939 to 1945.”[30] For Tatz, Barta’s presentation was an “inspirational moment and one that became central to my life thereafter.”[31] Embracing and weaponizing the utterly bogus notion of the “Stolen Generations,” Tatz claimed that as a result of “the public’s first knowledge of the wholesale removal of Aboriginal children, the dreaded ‘g’ word is firmly with us,” affirming that the “purpose of my university and public courses” is “to keep it here.”[32] According to Tatz, White people who rejected his “genocide” label exhibited psychological disturbances manifested in “paroxysms, ranging from upset to extreme angst to even more extreme anger, when the (literal) spectres of genocide appear as facets of their proudly democratic histories.”[33]

Inevitably, Barta and Tatz likened rejection of, or even ambivalence toward, their assertion that “Australia is a nation built on genocide” to “Holocaust denial.” Here they were joined by fellow Jewish academic and leading proponent of the “Stolen Generations” myth, Professor Robert Manne. Former editor in chief of The Australian, Chris Mitchell, noted Manne’s penchant for “manipulation of the idea of the Holocaust for political advantage, particularly in the Stolen Generations debate,” observing “this Holocaust tactic, like the related use of the word ‘denier,’ is a simple trick to undermine an opponent’s moral position when a polemicist has little intellectual case.”[34] In levelling the “genocide” charge against White Australians, these Jewish activists seek to exert the kind of psychological leverage used so effectively against Germans, who, as Tatz noted, are “weighed down by the Schuldfrage (guilt question)” to such an extent that “guilt, remorse, shame permeate today’s Germany.”[35]

In addition to this genocide charge, other important parts of the psychological leverage exerted against White Australians are the (now ubiquitous) ceremonial practices known as “Welcome to Country” and “Acknowledgement of Country.” Replacing Christian prayer, these solemn genuflections to the sanctity of Aboriginal people and their culture now feature at the commencement of all public events. Welcome to Country was invented out of whole cloth by the Aboriginal actors Richard Walley and Ernie Dingo in 1976. Despite the lack of any real evidence, some Aboriginal activists allege (relying on Aboriginal oral tradition) that the practice can be traced back thousands of years. We are supposed to take such claims seriously despite the fact that such hearsay evidence is considered unreliable and is therefore inadmissible as evidence in all Australian courts.

Regardless of origin, “Welcome to Country” and “Acknowledgement of Country” have exploded in observance and become a potent symbol of the new secular religion of Aboriginal worship and enforced White penitence. Some jurisdictions, such as New South Wales, have made Welcome to Country (or, failing that, Acknowledgement of Country) mandatory at all government-run events. It was first introduced into the Federal Parliament in 2008 and now forms a regular element of Australian political process. The Acknowledgement of Country is touted by activists as a way “any person can show awareness and respect for Aboriginal culture and heritage and the ongoing relationship the traditional custodians have with the land. … It is a demonstration of respect dedicated to the traditional custodians of the land (or sea) where the event, meeting, school function or conference takes place.” In reality, the practice is about political correctness, virtue-signaling and fostering a culture of White abasement.

The new civic religion of Aboriginal worship has infiltrated corporate Australia via compulsory diversity training — pushed under the threat of people’s livelihoods. It is manifested in scrupulous and ubiquitous observance of Welcome to Country and Acknowledgment of Country (all QANTAS passengers are now subjected to it when landing at any Australian airport), and in the fetish for featuring Blacks of all kinds in advertising (in a nation with a still negligible Black population). It is also expressed in the prominent use of Aboriginal art in corporate headquarters and websites.

It is hardly surprising that, in response to such practices, the diffusion of bogus anti-White historical narratives in Australian schools, and the raft of financial and professional incentives available to Aboriginal people today, we are seeing a sharp increase in the number of White Australians identifying as Black. The spectacular professional rise of individuals like Bruce Pascoe only demonstrates the rich rewards that can flow from shedding one’s White identity in contemporary Australia.

 Brenton Sanderson is the author of Battle Lines: Essays on Western Culture, Jewish Influence and Anti-Semitism, banned by Amazon, but available here.


[1] Sutton, Peter; Walshe, Keryn (2021). Farmers or Hunter-Gatherers? The Dark Emu Debate. Melbourne: Melbourne University Publishing.

[2] Keen, Ian (2021). “Foragers or Farmers: Dark Emu and the Controversy over Aboriginal Agriculture”. Anthropological Forum. 31: 106–128.

[3] Taylor, Paige (23 June 2021). “Darker issues at play over Bruce Pascoe’s Dark Emu”. The Australian.

[4] Adcock, M., DeFanti, A. Eggleston, T., Osbourne, D. Polatidis, D., Keith Pratt, A., Ritchie, L., Cambridge Humanities for Victoria 9 (Cambridge University Press: Port Melbourne, 2020), 20.

[5] Adcock, M., DeFanti, A., Casey, J., Driscoll, B., Eggleston, Frigo, N., Middlebrook, Y., Polatidis, D., Keith T., Keith Pratt, A., Cambridge Humanities for Victoria 7 (Cambridge University Press: Port Melbourne, 2020), 7, 6.

[6] Ibid., 20.

[7] Lawless, B., Green, D., O’Brien, P., Shephard, N., Van Weringh, I., Fricker, A., Good Humanities 9 (Matilda Education: Fitzroy, Victoria, 2021), 9, 62.

[8] Lawless, B., O’Leary, D., Van Noorden, P. Good Humanities (Matilda Education: Fitzroy Victoria, 2021), 106.

[9] Lawless et al., Good Humanities 9, Op cit., 9, 90.

[10] Tony Thomas, “The long history of Aboriginal violence – Part II,” Quadrant Online, May 7, 2013. https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/bennelong-papers/2013/05/the-long-bloody-history-of-aboriginal-violence/

[11] Ibid.

[12] Nowra, Bad Dreaming: Aboriginal Men’s Violence Against Women & Children (Melbourne: Pluto Press, 2007), 10.

[13] Peter Sutton, The Politics of Suffering: Indigenous Australia and the End of the Liberal Consensus (Melbourne: University of Melbourne Press, 2009), 100.

[14] Nowra, Bad Dreaming, 13.

[15] Joan Kimm, A Fatal Conjunction: Two Laws Two Cultures (Sydney: Federation Press, 2004), 76.

[16] Nowra, Bad Dreaming, 12.

[17] Ibid., 12.

[18] Stephanie Jarrett, Liberating Aboriginal People from Violence (Victoria: Ballan, 2013), 123.

[19] William Buckley, The Life and Adventures of William Buckley: Thirty-Two Years a Wanderer Amongst the Aborigines of the Then Unexplored Country Round Port Phillip, Now the Province of Victoria (Hobart: Archibald MacDougall, 1852), 66-7.

[20] Raphael Israeli, The Blood Libel and Its Derivatives: The Scourge of Anti-Semitism (London: Routledge, 2017), 4.

[21] Jarrett, Liberating Aboriginal People from Violence, 1.

[22] Ibid., 291.

[23] Lawless et al., Good Humanities 9, op cit., 61.

[24] Colin Tatz, Human Rights and Human Wrongs: A Life Confronting Racism (Clayton, Victoria; Monash University Publishing, 2015), 251.

[25] Tony Barta, “Realities, Surrealities and the Membrane of Innocence,” In: Genocide Perspectives: A Global Crime, Australian Voices, Ed. Nikki Marczak & Kirril Shields (Sydney: UTS ePress, 2017), 161.

[26] A. Francis Johnson, Australian Fiction as Archival Salvage: Making and Unmaking the Postcolonial Novel (Boston: Brill Rodopi, 2016), 198.

[27] A. Dirk Moses, “Genocide and Settler Society in Australian History” In: Genocide and Settler Society: Frontier Violence and Stolen Indigenous Children in Australian History, Ed. A. Dirk Moses (Sydney: Berghahn Books, 2004), 26.

[28] Ibid., 238; 174.

[29] George Newhouse, “Standing up for the Aboriginal community,” The Australian Jewish News, October 26, 2017. https://www.jewishnews.net.au/standing-up-for-the-aboriginal-community/70424

[30] Tatz, Human Rights and Human Wrongs, 251-52.

[31] Colin Tatz, Australia’s Unthinkable Genocide (Xlibris; 2017), 499.

[32] Colin Tatz, With Intent to Destroy: Reflecting on Genocide (London; Verso, 2003), xvi.

[33] Tatz, With Intent to Destroy, xiii; xvi.

[34] Chris Mitchell, “A critic untroubled by facts who seeks to silence dissent,” The Australian, September 17, 2011.

[35] Colin Tatz, Australia’s Unthinkable Genocide (Xlibris; 2017), 3009.

London Crawling: A City Takes the Knee

I was born in London, England. I say England because apparently there are seven Londons in the USA, and another one in Ontario. I am in Costa Rica, and there is even a Londres here, a bus-ride away. I haven’t been back to my home city for three years, not since everyone thought Covid was a Roman poet, but I do feel sentimental about the old place, and Maybe it’s because I’m a Londoner. Not the least of the attractions of England’s capital city is that it is a treasure trove of everything it means culturally to be white and English. Well, it was. What happened? Let’s jump in a London black cab and have a look. First stop, 96 Euston Road.

The British Library (BL) in London is one of the leading and most comprehensive collections of the world’s literature. They even have my doctoral thesis in there somewhere.  However, things are changing. In 2020, chief Librarian Liz Jolly spoke of removing and revising certain displays after the usual racial forensics had determined any historical figures even tenuously linked to slavery (which Britain, of course, was instrumental in halting). ‘Hundreds of staff’ reportedly signed a letter declaring a racial ‘state of emergency’ at the BL. Jolly herself spoke of the importance of White colleagues playing their part in the now-familiar ‘decolonization’ process, which she proposed was due to the fact that ‘racism is an invention of white people’. I don’t suppose there’s any chance of borrowing a copy of Conrad’s The Nigger of the Narcissus.

From literature to music, and we’ll ask our cabbie to whisk us across London to Covent Garden, home of The Royal Opera House (ROH). As with all the institutions sketched out here, they of course have a “Diversity and Inclusion” policy. Two points are of interest. Firstly, the ROH “is a member of the Employers Network for Equality and Inclusion, which is the UK’s leading employer network covering all aspects of equality and inclusion in the workplace”. Not only will the cost of this consultancy grift be built into the price of opera tickets almost exclusively bought by White people, it also implies that trained Black opera singers and professional Muslim wig-makers are clearly too stupid to find the ROH for their audition or interview. The ROH also dances to the tune of an organization called Stonewall, an LGBT charity, but this is just their aria and we will wait for their grand entrance when we get to the police. The ROH is the first of many examples of the following ethnically cleansed selection process:

We actively encourage people from diverse backgrounds to join our teams and value the positive impact that difference has on our work. We particularly encourage applications from people that are currently under-represented in the Performing Arts and at the ROH including those from Black, Asian [in the British sense, i.e., hailing from the Indian sub-continent] and minority ethnic backgrounds and disabled people.

This is, of course, coding for “English Whitey need not apply”. So, we can look forward to future productions of The Berber of Seville and Nigaro.

From literature and the opera we will jump in the back of the cab and head down The Strand to Trafalgar Square for a spot of art at the National Gallery (NG). I have spent many happy hours there, although it seems not enough Black people feel the same. The NG has a questionnaire on its website concerning ethnicity and disability, and this is not just a polite English nicety: “We are committed to eliminating discrimination in the arts and one of the tools we have to do this is monitoring who our services reach”.

As such, this seems reasonable enough. But the ultimate reason for this monitoring paints a depressing picture repeated across Britain’s cultural institutions: “This [monitoring] is a way of ensuring we are held accountable if we fail to serve members of our society equally” [Italics added].

I have never seen Blacks turned away from the NG by guards with snarling Alsatian dogs, nor cripples refused entry on the grounds they will just be a pain in the arse, what with needing to be pushed around and special toilets and what have you. But the NG diversity policy brings into focus the fact that these new laws are not so much about marginalization or equality as they are about enforced White guilt and, above all else, accountability. Whites are also accountable for just about every masterpiece in the NG, by the way, but it doesn’t work that way now.

We are going through the arts at a whirlwind pace, and before we taxi down to the Thames Embankment to visit Shakespeare’s Globe, we will tarry a while in Trafalgar Square. Rather naively, when I saw that the new work of art destined for Trafalgar Square’s fourth plinth was called Antelope, I thought it might be a representation of that beautiful creature. It was, of course, more Black/anti-White propaganda (the two are equivalent now).

Trafalgar Square’s four quadrilateral plinths were installed in the 19th century. Three of them hold statues of Major General Sir Henry Havelock, King George IV, and General Sir Charles James Napier. Both the iconoclastic Left and their Mohammedan ally, Muslim fifth-columnist Mayor of London Sadiq Khan, will be eyeing all three for removal. Napier is credited with the famous announcement in India concerning the prevalent Hindu ritual of sati and always worth a re-run. Sati was the requirement of a widowed woman to throw herself on her husband’s funeral pyre. Sir Charles told the Hindu priests the following:

Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation also has a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs.

However, the fourth plinth’s intended statuary occupant, William IV, never materialized, and since then it has been used to promote modern art with an increasingly racialized and ideological slant. It is the London Assembly – the legislative body over which Mayor Khan presides – who give the most revealing description of the new installation, Antelope:

Supported by Bloomberg Philanthropies, Samson Kambalu’s bronze resin sculpture restages a photograph of Baptist and pan-Africanist John Chilembwe and European missionary John Chorley, taken in 1914 in Nyasayland (now Malawi) at the opening of Chilembwe’s new Baptist church.

Chilembwe is wearing a hat, defying the colonial rule that forbade Africans from wearing hats in front of white people, and is almost twice the size of Chorley. By increasing his scale, the artist is elevating Chilembwe and his story, revealing the hidden narratives of under-represented peoples in the history of the British Empire, and beyond.

The previous commissions that have been placed on the fourth plinth can be found here. They are not all ugly and ideological, but most are. Their artistic worth, however, is of less interest than their intentional architectural incongruity. The regime that currently dominates the British cultural elites has made sure that each work of art is entirely out of keeping with the historical shrine which Trafalgar Square was designed to be, each one a sore on classical, white skin.

An Example of the Fourth Plinth from 2020

From Trafalgar Square our cabbie would naturally take a tourist up The Mall to Buckingham Palace, but we will respect the long period of mourning being observed for the passing of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and merely note in passing that royalty is not diverse enough, a mulatto princeling notwithstanding. But we haven’t got time to hang about at the Queen’s, or rather the King’s, gaff, as Londoners would once have said. We’ve got a date with the Swan of Avon at Shakespeare’s Globe Theatre.

After a while, going through the various diversity and inclusion statements from London’s great institutions becomes as wearying as sitting through the Bard’s longest play, the four-hour-plus A Winter’s Tale (A Midsummer Night’s Dream is the shortest, by the way. It’s about the length of a soccer match and that fact may win you a bar quiz one day). The document from Shakespeare’s Globe is here. What is interesting about this policy statement is its sense of culpability. Scholars still wrangle over the meaning of Shakespeare, but his opening lines all have more meaning than that of The Globe’s policy statement, “Action must be taken to dismantle systemic racism”. King Lear is easier to understand. Also, actors’ guild rag The Stage could not resist a bit of virtue-signalling concerning Ukraine—“Ukrainian voices should be heard on UK stages.”

Staying with the drama, The National Theatre, a bit of a walk from the Globe on the South Bank, near the London Eye, has an appropriately dramatic diversity and inclusion policy, but you can always trust luvvies to out-perform everyone else. If you enjoy comic theatre, this will make you laugh:

Reinforcing racial justice and equity is an ongoing commitment for the National Theatre. While this work progresses we remain focused in our support for other under-represented groups as they too drive for access to opportunities, to be treated fairly and to have their voices heard.

So dramatic. Darling, you were wonderful. If any of the gauleiters who run this pansified operation believe Black actors are having a thin time of things they are in a drama they wrote themselves. This is cotton-picking season if you are a Black thespian.

If you walk back down the Thames Embankment from The Globe, and you know what you are looking for, you will see across the river the building which is home to MI5, nerve center of Britain’s intelligence services. Fictionally, this is James Bond’s office, and not a bad piece of architecture in the context of the Lego brutality of most of the rest of London’s contemporary builds.

MI5 Headquarters

If you happen to be a White man looking for a job, however, don’t even think about a shaken Martini and a tuxedo. Only ethnic minorities and women need apply: “MI5 recruiting new spooks but will only consider women and ethnic minorities.”

So, if you want to be a spook it helps if you already are one. “Our operations are hugely varied, which is why increasing the diversity of our people is needed more than ever before,” say MI5. There is no correlation between variety of operational practice and a concomitant requirement for more colored people, but we are now used to this type of ex cathedra pronouncement intended to marginalize Whites in their own countries, or what used to be their own countries. It is the equivalent of giving an answer in a mathematics exam without showing the working, only a good deal more serious. Had MI5 said, for example, that they wanted to recruit more Muslims to go undercover among the Muslims we are assured are constantly plotting terrorist attacks, that might have made some sense. It is far more likely that these new James Bonds will be used to go after chimerical “White supremacists” of the type that Hope not Hate pretend exist and the police are desperate to find so that they are not forced to investigate Pakistani Muslim rape gangs. Taxi!

To Green Park, taking us past the world-famous Ritz Hotel. At least we can be sure that a hotel won’t be “woke”. Oh, wait. Here are their website’s policies on the 2019 Modern Slavery Act, green issues, and the gender pay gap. Well, let’s pass on and get to the RAF (Royal Air Force) Club in time for lunch. I have actually eaten there, not because I have any connection with the RAF, but my ex-wife’s parents knew a pilot famous for making one of the test flights of Britain’s very first jet fighter, the Gloster Meteor. He was a charming man, oddly eccentric and excellent company. He had forgotten to wear a tie and had to borrow one from the barman so that we could be seated in the dining-room. If he were to apply to the RAF as a pilot today he may have a problem, given that their aim is to stop hiring white men. Back in the cab and to New Scotland Yard, the nerve center of London’s Metropolitan Police.

A sleight of hand took place a while ago regarding the British police. A degree did not used to be required for employment as a police officer. Now it is, and it is unlikely that your average copper will read for a STEM degree. Why would you graduate in civil engineering or molecular chemistry then take a job in which the only time you left the office was to be spat at by this week’s demonstrators? Police officers will, of course, have arts degrees, which now consist mostly of intellectual confectionery intended to stamp the braille of conformity into their personalities and thus ability to do the job.

Where the police have been threatened in the USA by mostly Black Democrat Mayors, governors, DAs and the rest of the apparatus supposed to maintain law and order, the British police have been neutered by being forced to go “woke”. Stonewall is an aggressive, pro-homosexual organization who have taken control of the ideology of the police. The mewling response of London’s police to Stonewall’s “action plan” can be downloaded here. The police are powerless to stop escalating Black knife crime and looting in London, but they have resolved to “explore whether we can include an explicit statement of zero tolerance to homophobic, biphobic and transphobic bullying”.

Britons never, never, never shall be slaves. So say the lyrics to the National Anthem. But they already are, and these supplicant documents paraded by a nation’s great cultural institutions in its capital city show that. British culture is now constrained by coercive protocols, a quasi-legal system of crime and punishment. London is not unique. Wherever you are, if you are white, male and heterosexual, look at the organizations involved in your life, your employer, your bank, your insurer, you or your kids’ university or college or school, and it’s a pound to a pinch of snuff that they will have a diversity and inclusion policy which implicitly — and increasingly explicitly — tells you that you are a bad person. It would be easy to declare that you will have nothing to do with any organization which has such a policy, but only given that you have no need to work or use a bank or send your kids to be ‘educated’.

London is a beautiful, wonderful, historical city. But, like the underground rivers that crisscross that city beneath its pavements (which American readers would call ‘sidewalks’), there is hidden activity in its great and founding institutions. Whites are now a minority in London, not simply because of influx but because whites are leaving, for which they will of course be blamed. Britain is just as close to the USA to a civil war, and I hope the first places torched are the treasonous ones I have mentioned here. People may be unforgiving when, as The Clash sang in London Calling, war is declared, and battle come down.